AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sundaram Chetty, J.—The question of Court-fee payable has to depend on the allegations in the plaint, and this is not the stage at which the
Court should say whether these allegations are true or not. In the plaint there is no prayer for a declaration that the partition deed referred to
therein should be set aside, nor is any declaration asked for in respect of it. The , trend of the plaint seems to be, that though severance in status is
effected, there was no actual division by metes and bounds, but, on the other hand, the plaintiffs and defendants, are in joint possession (vide para.
22 of the plaint). So far as the partition of the immovables is concerned in view of the prior division in status, the suit is for division and separate
possession of the plaintiffs'' share as against other tenants-in-common. The claim will fall under Article 17-B, Seheudle II of the Court Fees Act.
Vide The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Lakhannai (1932) 64 M.L.J. 24. The fixed fee of Rs. 100 has been paid.
There is an additional prayer for rendition of accounts. This portion of the claim will bring the case under Clause (f) of Sub-section (iv) of
Section 7 of the Court Fees Act.
The plaintiffs should value this relief as a suit for accounts, and pay additional Court-fee within a time to be fixed by the Lower Court. The order
sought to be revised is modified accordingly. The parties will bear their own costs.