this Court held that defendants had paid Court fee on the basis of 20 times the land revenue. It was further held that since the decree did not in terms direct delivery of possession of a portion of a Khasra number, but it directed demarcation of ¼th share of the plaintiff, therefore Court fee was payable only on the basis of 20 times the land revenue and not on the market value. In the matter of Ramkali Bai v. Babu Ram, 1975 MPLJ Short Note 28, wherein plaintiff suing for joint possession of agricultural land and defendants pleading construction of a petrol pump and development of a garden, this Court held that no Court fees need be paid on the market value of the structures or the garden. In the matter of Ambaram v. Narbad, 1976 MPLJ Short Note 2, wherein the suit is for definite share of land, this Court held that in case where plaintiff is not claiming any particular piece of land but a definite share ¼th or ⅓rd, in that case the value is to be determined on the land revenue paid and not on the basis of market value. In the matter of Rehmatulla Khan v. Aziz Khan, 1980 JLJ Short Note 36, wherein Lower Court held that suit being for cancellation of will, must pay the Court fees accordingly, this Court held that suit of the plaintiff was that his share be declared 1/12th and be put in possession, hence section 7(iv)(c) attracted and plaintiff can sue for possession without asking for a declaration and cancellation. In the matter of Bhagwati v. Chamar Rai, 1980 (II) MPWN Note 22, wherein the suit was instituted for partition and separate possession of ¼th share in the suit lands which are separately assessed to land revenue, this Court held that perusal of clause (vi-a) of section 7 shows that in a suit for partition, without claiming separate possession, the suit has to be valued according to one-half of the value of the plaintiffs share of the property. This is indicative of the facts that Court fees payable on such a suit is less than the Court fee payable when a suit is instituted for partition and separate possession on the ground that the plaintiff is out of possession. The Legislative intent is thus clear that when a plaintiff claims partition and separate possession on the ground that he is out of possession, the claim is to be valued just like a suit for possession simpliciter. In fact, when a co-owner files a suit for partition and separate possession, on the ground that he is out of possession, there is no difference between such a suit and a suit for possession based on title. The
