RAM LAKHAN Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a report by the taxing officer about deficiency in Court fee. The facts are simple :

(2.) RAM Lakhan and Ram Naresh, plaintiffs-appellants, filed a suit for partition against their uncle, Raj Kumar, in respect of movable and im- movable properties. They claimed a half share in all of the properties on the ground that all of them were Joint family properties. The defence to the suit was that part of the immovable property was the self-acquired property of Raj Kumar and the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any share therein.

(3.) THE trial Court decreed the suit in part. and dismissed it in respect of some items of the property in dispute. Both parties were dissatisfied with that decree. The plaintiffs appealed to the lower appellate Court in respect of items which were held not to be joint family property while the defendant filed cross-objections in respect of some of the properties which had been held to be joint family properties and not the self-acquired property of Raj Kumar. The plaintiffs valued their appeal at the value of the property which was the subject-matter of the appeal. So did the defendant value his cross-objections at the value of the property in respect of which he alleged that it belonged to him exclusively and paid Court fee in accordance with such valuation. The court below dismissed both the appeals and the cross-objection. The defendant submitted to the decree of the Court below but the plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal in this Court and have valued their appeal at the valuation of the property in dispute in the second appeal and not at the value of the entire property which was the subject-matter of the original suit. The taxing officer has reported that both in the Court below and in this Court the plaintiffs were liable to pay Court fee on the value of the entire subject-matter of the suit and not on the value of the items of property which were in dispute in the appeal in the Court below or which are in dispute in this second appeal. The report further says that the defendant-respondent was also liable to pay the deficiency in Court-fee on the cross-objection filed by him in the lower appellate Court on the same ground.