1. This petition is directed against the order dated 20.12.2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 102-A/2004 by the Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, whereby he has called upon the petitioner to pay additional court-fees as required under section 7 (vi-a) (b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The case of the petitioner before the trial Court is that the suit house originally belonged to late Laxmichand who expired leaving behind his four sons, namely; Chakodilal, Harishchand, Sumerchand and Bansilal who have now also expired. Respondent No. 1 is the only legal heir of late Chakodilal. Harishchand died leaving behind the present petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 in the suit house. Similarly, Bansilal left behind his widow, respondent No.5, and three sons, respondents No.6 to 8. Respondents No. 4-a to i are the legal representatives of Sumerchand. The petitioner has pleaded that during the lifetime of late Laxmichand the suit house was not partitioned between him and his four sons named above. Thus, according to the petitioner, after the death of Laxmichand his four sons jointly inherited the suit house in equal shares. Respondent No. 1 has alienated the suit house to the respondents No.2 and 3 by a registered sale deed dated 11.3.2002 on a sale consideration of Rs. 10 lac. In the suit, the petitioner has prayed for partition claiming 1/4th share in the suit house. He has also sought a declaration that he being one of the co-owners of the suit house, the sale effected by the respondent No. 1 in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3 was void to the extent of his share and the respondent No.1 could only sell 1/4th of the undivided share. He has also categorically prayed for the delivery of possession of his share in the suit house. For these reliefs of partition, declaration and possession the petitioner has valued the suit at Rs.1,25,000/-. The petitioner has claimed a further relief of permanent injunction for which additional valuation of Rs. 300/- has been made. He has paid the court-fees of this amount under section 7 (vi-a) (a) of the Act.

3. The respondents in their written statement have denied the petitioner's claim of being a co-owner of the suit house. They have also denied the averment of petitioner that there was no partition of the suit house between Laxmichand and his four sons.

4. The trial Court has framed number of issues in the suit. Issue No. 11 is whether the suit is properly valued and proper court-fee has been paid.

5. The trial Court, by the impugned order, has held that as the petitioner is not in possession of the suit house and his claim of being a co-owner of the same has been denied by the respondents, he is liable to pay court-fees on Rs.2,50,000/-, which is 1/4th share of the total sale consideration of Rs.10 lac. The Court has called upon the petitioner to pay additional court-fees as required under section 7 (vi-a) (b) of the Act.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the decision of the Nagpur High Court in Dhanji Ramji v. Kalyanji Ramji and others [AIR 1956 Nagpur 175] has argued that the trial Court committed an illegality in directing the petitioner to pay additional court-fees as required under section 7 (vi-a) (b) of the Act. He has also argued that the trial Court ought to have inferred the possession of petitioner in the suit house, as he is a co-owner of the same. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the impugned order and argued that the decision of the Nagpur High Court in Dhanji Ramji (supra) does not help the case of petitioner.

7. Section 7 (via) of the Act, which deals with court-fees payable in suits for partition, reads as under:

"7 (via). Computation of fees payable in suits for partition:

(a) according to one half of the value of the plaintiff's share of the property; and .

(b) according to the full value of such share if on the date of presenting