ONKAR MAL Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a court-fee matter in a second appeal by the plaintiffs.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the question of court-fee raised before us it is necessary to state a few facts. The plaintiffs brought a partition suit in respect of a house in which they claimed a moiety share. It was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs were in joint possession of their half share ever since its purchase on 11-1-1937, from the father of the defendants for a sum of Rs. 1,500/

(3.) THE above suit was contested by the defendants-respondents. They denied the fact that the plaintiffs were co-owners of the house. They further denied that the plaintiffs were in possession of the share claimed by them. The question whether the plaintiffs were in joint possession of the house was the subject-matter of issue No. 3, which, ran thus: "are the plaintiffs in possession of the house? If not, what is the effect?" both sides led evidence on this issue. On the evidence produced in the case the trial Court held that the plaintiffs had not established their joint possession over the house,