IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 20 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 6309 of 2019 DURGA PRASAD SONI Versus BHOJRAJ SONI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vineet Mishra - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Amit Mishra - P.L. for the respondents / State.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Saini- Advocate for respondent No.1 ORDER Shri Vinit Mishra- Advocate appears as proxy counsel and submits that the party has taken away the file from the Office of the counsel and therefore, they have no instructions in the matter.

2. As the trial in the case is held up since 2019, this Court proceeds to hear the case on merits.

3. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

09.09.2019, whereby the trial Court has directed the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fees on the basis of value of his share in the property, as the suit is for partition.

4. The suit is for partition and consequential permanent injunction. No relief of possession has been prayed in the suit for partition and so far as the relief of permanent injunction is concerned, the plaintiff has already valued the value for the purpose of permanent injunction as per his wish and paid the ad valorem court fees thereupon. The question now arising is valuation of the suit for the purpose of relief of partition on the basis of valuation of share of plaintiff.

5. The trial Court has held that the plaintiff does not appear to be in possession and therefore he has to pay the ad valorem court fees as per the value of his share as per Section 7 of Court Fees Act, 1870. While ordering so the trial court has relied on para-10 of the plaint which mentions that since the plaintiff was in apprehension of the physical and mental damage to be conducted to him by residing in the house therefore he has put his lock in the property and is living in a rented house. The trial Court has considered the said pleading to be a pleading that the plaintiff is not in possession.

6. The aforesaid pleading in para-10 is as under:-

10.) यह (cid:3)क, उ(cid:6) घटना के प(cid:13)ात वाद(cid:17) को हमेशा इस बात क(cid:24) आशंका एवं भय बना रहा (cid:3)क (cid:30)ितवाद(cid:17) (cid:32)मांक 01 अपने प(cid:34)रवार के साथ िमलकर वाद(cid:17) एवं उसके प(cid:34)रवार के (cid:37)व(cid:38)(cid:39) (cid:3)कसी भी तरह के गंभीर आपरािधक आरोप लगाकर वाद(cid:17) एवं उसके प(cid:34)रवार को शार(cid:17)(cid:34)रक, मानिसक, सामा(cid:43)जक एवं आिथक(cid:45) आ(cid:3)द (cid:46)ित पहुचं ा सकता था (cid:43)जससे अ(cid:49)यिधक भयोपरत होकर वाद(cid:17) उ(cid:6) वाद(cid:50)(cid:51)त संप(cid:37)(cid:52) म(cid:53) अपने (cid:3)ह(cid:51)से एवं आिधप(cid:49)य के मकान म(cid:53) घर-गहृ (cid:51)थी का उ(cid:6) संपूण (cid:45) सामान छोड़कर अपना ताला लगाकर प(cid:34)रवार स(cid:3)हत अ(cid:59)य (cid:60)य(cid:37)(cid:6) के मकान म(cid:53) (cid:3)कराया से रहने लगा है।

7. The aforesaid pleading though mentions that the plaintiff is not residing in the suit premises but he submits that his lock is put in the suit premises and therefore this pleading cannot be read to infer that plaintiff is not in possession of suit premises. If the defendants come out with a case that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit premises then it would become a triable issue but looking to the plaint assertion it cannot be inferred that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit premises because he has categorically pleaded that his lock has be put in the suit premises. Once a person has come to the Court with pleading that his lock is put in the premises, then it is a pleading of his possession in the premises and therefore, the trial Court has erred in inferring that para-10 of the plaint means pleading that the plaintiff not in possession. The Trial Court inferred the suit to be one of partition with separate possession, whereas no relief of separate possession has been prayed in the plaint.

8. Therefore, the impugned order dated 09.09.2019 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to re-decide the question of valuation and court fees by infe