Judgment.- The two plaintiffs are the petitioners. The first plaintiff is the husband of the second plaintiff. The defendant is a son of a brother of the first plaintiff. Early in January, 1944 the first plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant telling him that he intended to become divided in status. After having thus effected a disruption in status, the first plaintiff executed on 10th January, 1944 a gift deed of his immoveable assets in favour of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs continued to live as previously in a portion of the family house. Thereafter they brought a suit for partition of the assets of the family and and also for accounts. A sum of Rs.100 (one hundred) was paid as Court-fee in respect of the claim for partition under Article 17-B of Schedule II of the Court-Fees Act. The objection was taken that the Court-fee paid was insufficient. The learned Subordinate Judge went into the question and required the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem Court-fee. They have therefore come to this Court. One item in respect of which ad valorem Court-fee was insisted on, is the house in a part of which the plaintiffs live. Now, under section 7, clause (5) of the Court Fees Act which is the one which the learned Subordinate Judge held to be applicable, ad valorem fees need be paid only if the plaintiffs sue for possession-but their allegation is that they are already in possession. That being so, I find it difficult to see how they can be required to sue for possession or said to be suing for possession of the properties. The learned Government Pleader referred me to the decisions in Manjaya v. Shanmuga1, Maharaja of Bobbili v. Venkataramanjulu Naidu2 and Subba Goundan v. Krishnamachari3 and also to page 491 of the nth edition of Mayne’s Hindu Law wherein it is stated “The view taken by the Madras High Court that as the purchaser from a coparcener is not a tenant-in-common with the coparceners in the family, he is not entitled to joint possession or to mesne profits.....appears to be the sound view”. This however is not in dispute. An alienee from a coparcener may not be a tenant-in-common; he may also be not entitled to possession. This however is not in dispute. An alienee from a coparcener may not be a tenant-in-common; he may also be not entitled to possession. Still if as a matter of hard fact he is in actual possession of the property, why should it be said that he must pay Court-fee as though he were not in possession? That is a requirement I find it hard to understand. So far as the house is concerned of which the plaintiffs are in possession, they are not bound in my view to pay Court-fee under section 7(5) of the Court-Fees Act. Payment under Article 17-B of Schedule II is sufficient. In respect of the matter included in the plaint, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge appears to me to be correct. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed to the extent indicated above. As the petitioners have succeeded in part and failed in part there will be no order as to costs. Time to pay deficit Court-fee one month. K.C. ----- Petition allowed.