VIJAY KUMAR Vs. HARISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial judge holding that the court-fee is payable on the market value of the property and after so saying he deferred the final decision on the issue.

(2.) The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for possession by partition of the joint property inter alia alleging that he had 1/2 share in the same. The trial judge found that ad voleram court-fee had to be paid on the market value of the property. The view taken by the trial judge is patently erroneous. This Court has taken a consistent view that the real relief claimed and granted in such a suit for partition is the change it the mode of enjoyment of the properties from joint possession to separate possession and that it is not possible to estimate its value in money and that such a suit falls under clause (vi) of Article 17 of Schedule II of Court Fees Act (for short the Act). Reference can usefully be made to a Full Bench decision rendered in Asa Ram and others v. Jagan Nath and others,1934 36 PunLR 48where Jia Lal, J. speaking for the Bench held as under :

(3.) For the reasons aforesaid the civil revision is allowed; the order under challenge is quashed and it is held that the court-fee has been correctly paid. The trial Court will dispose of the suit in accordance with law.