Judgment :- 1. This is a Second Appeal by defendants 1 and 8 and it arises out of a suit for partition. The parties are Mohamedans. The plaintiffs sued for 2/12th share in the plaint properties (1/12th for 1st plaintiff and 1/12 for the other plaintiffs). As regards item No. 1,1/12th was claimed on the allegation that the property belonged to Kunju Beevi Ummal and that on her death.one-fourth of it devolved on her husband Pakeer Mahomed. What was claimed was one-third of this one-fourth for the 1st plaintiff and a similar share for the other plaintiffs. The trial court found that the property belonged to Pakeer Mahomed and that the 1st plaintiff was entitled to one-third of the whole of item No.1 and the other plaintiffs to an equal share. The plaintiffs were given a decree on this basis. This part of the decree was confirmed in appeal. The lower appellate court however modified the decree by allowing the 1st defendant's claim for Rs. 300/- spent for the funeral expenses of Pakeer Mahomed. Defendants 1 and 8 have preferred this Second Appeal from the decree of the lower appellate court. 2. The first point urged on behalf of appellants was that the 1st defendant should be allowed to amend her written statement. An application (C.M.P. No. 299 dated 22-7-1957) was filed praying for such permission. I have dismissed the same by a separate order. 3. The point strenuously pressed before me was that the decrees are in excess of the plaint claim and are therefore contrary to law. The argument is that the courts below were not justified in granting a decree for 2/3rd of item No 1 for the plaintiffs since their prayer was only for 2/12 share. Though the plaintiffs claimed only 2/12 of item No.1 their prayer was for 2/3rd of the rights of Pakeer Mahomed, who was found by the courts to own not merely one-fourth of the property but the whole property. Maqsood Ali. v Zahid Ali (A.I.R.1954 All. 315) is an authority clearly supporting the view taken by the lower courts. The question for decision was "What will be the share due to plaintiffs" (Issue No. 4). The defendants did not admit the shares claimed in the plaint and the issue was in general terms. Maqsood Ali. v Zahid Ali (A.I.R.1954 All. 315) is an authority clearly supporting the view taken by the lower courts. The question for decision was "What will be the share due to plaintiffs" (Issue No. 4). The defendants did not admit the shares claimed in the plaint and the issue was in general terms. I do not think an amendment of the plaint was necessary to grant proper relief to the plaintiff It was urged that a suit for 2/3rd of the properties would have been beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsiff who tried the case. Even though be had no jurisdiction to try suits having a value of Rs. 2000 or more, his jurisdiction was raised to Rs. 3000 during the pendency of the trial. No question of jurisdiction is therefore involved in this case. "However the plaintiff should have been directed to pay court fees on the enhanced claim before the decree was passed. As a final decree has to be passed in the suit, the trial court is directed to see that proper court fees is paid before proceeding further with the case. 4. The last point is regarding the claim for Rs. 150 disallowed by the trail court. This was not pressed before the lower appellate court. The appellant is not entitled to raise the same now. 5. In the result the decree of the lower appellate court is confirmed subject to the direction regarding court fees and the second appeal is dismissed with costs. The memorandum of cross-objections is also dismissed with costs.