DIGAMBAR KUMAR JAIN Vs. MAYA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 20-12-2005 passed in Civil Suit No. 102-A/2004 by the Second Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, whereby he has called upon the petitioner to pay additional Court-fees as required under Section 7 (vi-a) (b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE case of the petitioner before the Trial Court is that the suit house originally belonged to late Laxmichand who expired leaving behind his four sons, namely; Chakodilal, Harishchand, Sumerchand and Bansilal who have now also expired. Respondent No. 1 is the only legal heir of late Chakodilal. Harishchand died leaving behind the present petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the suit house. Similarly, Bansilal left behind his widow, respondent No. 5, and three sons, respondent Nos. 6 to 8. Respondent Nos. 4-a to i are the legal representatives of Sumerchand. The petitioner has pleaded that during the lifetime of late Laxmichand the suit house was not partitioned between him and his four sons named above. Thus, according to the petitioner, after the death of Laxmichand his four sons jointly inherited the suit house in equal shares. Respondent No. 1 has alienated the suit house to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by a registered sale deed dated 11-3-2002 on a sale consideration of Rs. 10 lacs. In the suit, the petitioner has prayed for partition claiming l/4th share in the suit house. He has also sought a declaration that he being one of the co-owners of the suit house, the sale effected by the respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was void to the extent of his share and the respondent No. 1 could only sell l/4th of the undivided share. He has also categorically prayed for the delivery of possession of his share in the suit house. For these reliefs of partition, declaration and possession the petitioner has valued the suit at Rs. 1,25,000/ -. The petitioner has claimed a further relief of permanent injunction for which additional valuation of Rs. 300/- has been made. He has paid the Court-fees of this amount under Section 7 (vi-a) (a) of the Act.

(3.) THE respondents in their written statement have denied the petitioner's claim of being a co-owner of the suit house. They have also denied the averment of petitioner that there was no partition of the suit house between Laxmichand and his four sons.