In suits concerning agricultural land among family members, court fees are governed by S.7(v)(a) rather than partition provisions.

1. Challenge in this writ petition under Art.227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 7.11.2012 passed in MJC No. 03/2012 and an order dated 15.09.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 110 - A / 2008 by the First Civil Judge Class - II East Nimar, Khandwa allowing the application under O.7 R.11 of CPC and directing the petitioner plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee in accordance to S.7(vi - a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 .

2. It is the case of the petitioner that as petitioner is seeking possession and mesne profit with regard to agricultural land from his brothers, sisters and mother ad valorem court fee is not payable instead court fee in accordance to S.7(v)(a) of the Court Fees Act is payable.

3. The land in question is ancestral property of the petitioner's family. The petitioner and respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 are real brothers, respondents No. 4 & 5 are their sisters and Smt. Anokhibai was originally impleaded as respondent No. 6 was their mother and it is seen that she had expired on 13.1.2013. On the ground that the property is a family property and the petitioner is entitled to his share of the property in accordance to the law of succession, the suit was filed seeking separate possession and mesne profit in the aforesaid land. For the purpose of valuation the suit has been valued and court fees paid based on land revenue for the land and multiplied it by 20 i.e. court fees have been paid as per the provision of S.7(v)(a) of the Court fees Act.

4. Respondents filed their written statement and thereafter raised an objection by way of application under O.7 R.11 of CPC and stated that in a suit for partition ad valorem court fee under clause 7(v)(a) has to be paid. By the impugned order dated 15.9.2011 this application was allowed. Petitioner therefore filed a review application in MJC No. 3/2012 which was dismissed vide order dated 7.11.2012 and therefore this writ petition.

5. Shri Sameer Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to the provision of S.7(v)(a) of the Court Fees Act and argued that when the land is only agricultural land assessed to land revenue then Court fee has to be paid twenty times of the land revenue under clause 7(v)(a) and no ad valorem court fee as is contemplated for partition suit in general is payable. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhagwati v. Chamar Rai - 1980 (II) MPWN 22 and judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Prasad v. Jagdish - 2011 (2) MPLJ 116 .

6. Shri Imtiaz Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents, refuted the aforesaid that argued that in the suit for partition of the land in question the valuation in accordance to suit for partition has to be ordered.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. S.7(v)(a) of the Court Fees Act contemplates a provision for the matter of payment of court fees in suit for possession of lands, houses and gardens and the said section reads as under:
S.7(v). For possession of lands, houses and gardens. - In suits for possession of lands, houses and gardens, according to the value of the subject matter, and such value shall be deemed to be where subject matter is land; and
(a) such land is assessed to land revenue or land revenue is payable in respect of such land - twenty times the land revenue so assessed or so payable;
(b) such land forms a part of land which is assessed to land revenue or in respect of which land revenue is payable twenty times of the land revenue proportionately worked out for such