MOHANLAL NAROTTAMDAS KANDOI Vs. KESHAVLAL NAROTTAMDAS KANDOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made to me under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act by the Taxing Officer.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the reference are these. The present appellant (plaintiff) sued for partition, claiming one-third of a house which, he alleged, constituted the joint family property. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the joint family property consisted, not only of the house which the plaintiff sought to partition but also of another house, referred to as the house in exhibit 88, which was in the possession of the plaintiff, and the learned Judge, therefore, made an order that unless the plaintiff amended the plaint expressing his desire to put the house in exhibit 88 in his possession as joint family property no orders to effect partition of the suit house in his favour could be passed, as that would be in effect allowing a suit for partial partition. What the order comes to is that, if the plaintiff chooses to bring into hotchpot the house in exhibit 88, then he can have an order for partition of the two houses, but if he does not bring such house into hotchpot, then his suit for partition will be dismissed.

(3.) The plaintiff appealed against that order, and on presenting his memorandum of appeal the officer of the High Court to whom the memorandum of appeal was presented held that the memorandum ought to be stamped with the ad valorem value of the suit house and also the house in exhibit 88. On a reference to the Taxing Officer that view was upheld, and accordingly the plaintiff was required to stamp his memorandum of appeal on a sum of Rs. 5,334-5-4 for one-third share in the suit house and on Rs. 6,767-5-4 for two-thirds share in the house in exhibit 88.