The main legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of the subject-matter for court-fee purposes should be determined based on the rules contained under Section 7 of the Court-fees Act, particularly for revenue-paying estates.

Puranik, J—The plaintiff and defendant 1 are according to the allegations in the plaint co-widows of one Yadao, who died on 1-9-1942. It is stated in the plaint that the two widows succeeded to his property, but defendant 1 (the co-widow) is excluding the plaintiff from possession and enjoyment thereof and has also alienated a part of the property, viz., one field, in favour of defendants 2 and 3, though she had no right to alienate the plaintiff's share therein. She therefore instituted the present suit for partition and possession of her share of the property inasmuch as there was an alienation by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 she asked for a declaration that the alienation was not binding on her.

2. She valued her claim for purposes of court-fee at Rs. 409-6-0. The plaintiff's share in the house and movables was valued ad valorem at Rs. 76 and 190, and court-fee was paid thereon. She valued the field property for purposes of court-fee at 7 times the revenue, and as she claimed a half share therein the value came to Rs. 144-6-0. For purposes of jurisdiction, the fields were valued at 15 times the revenue, and half the fields being claimed by the plaintiff the value of that half was treated as the value for purposes of jurisdiction. Court-fee was paid accordingly.

3. The defendants objected to this valuation. The Court came to the conclusion that so far as the movables and the house were concerned the plaintiff had correctly valued the claim, but so far as the fields were concerned the claim was not properly valued and the plaintiff was bound to pay court-fee on the market value of her share of the field property under Section 7(iv)(b), Court-fees Act, inasmuch as she claimed a declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant 1 was not binding on her and asked for a consequential relief for possession of her share in that property, the Court held that that claim fell under Section 7(iv)(c), Court-fees Act and the plaintiff ought to value the same according to the market value of the said property.

4. In revision, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the valuation was correct and she should not have been called upon to pay any extra court fee, on the market value of the field property as stated by the Court below. The main question for decision therefore in this revision is whether the valuation at 7 times the land revenue for purposes of court-fee and 15 times the land revenue for purpose of jurisdiction is correct.

5. The Court below came to the conclusion that the suit fell under Section 7(iv)(b) by reason of the decisions of this Court in Sripati v. Shridhar,1902 15 CPLR 120 and Bhagwan Appa v. Shivappa, 1927 AIR(Nag) 248. These are decisions which were intended to show the difference between a suit claiming a change in the mode of enjoyment of family property and a suit to enforce a right to partition and possession thereof. It was pointed out in these cases that where the plaintiff's right to partition is admitted and the plaintiff is either in actual or constructive possession of the joint family property the suit is one for a change in the mode of enjoyment of the joint family property and as such a court-fee of Rs. 15 would suffice; but where the plaintiff's right as a co-parcener or co-sharer is denied and the plaintiff is excluded from possession it is a suit to enforce partition of what is stated to be joint family property by the plaintiff but which is not admitted by the other side, and, in such a case, the suit is not one claiming a mere change in the mode of enjoyment of the joint family property but one to enforce a right which is denied and in enforcement of the right to claim possession of the share. It is laid down in these cases that in such cases the value of the subject-matter of the suit should be determined and court-fee paid thereon. In none of these cases was the point that I am called upon to decide here raised.

6. It is not disputed before me that the plaintiff has t