Judgment :- 1. This revision petition raises the question as to what is the correct jurisdictional value to be shown in a suit for partition where the prayer is for converting joint possession into separate possession. The petitioner is the 1st defendant in O. S. No. 199 of 1968 on the file of the Munsiffs Court of Payyoli. The suit is for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/16 share which was valued by the plaintiff at Rs. 2968.75 The petitioner raised the contention that the suit was not within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff as the plaintiff's share was really worth Rs. 9000/-. An issue as to whether the suit is correctly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was framed on this contention of the petitioner and it was tried preliminarily The lower court held that the suit has been correctly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction and it is correctness of this finding that has been challenged in this revision petition. 2. So far as the court-fee is concerned, there is no dispute between the parties as it is clear that it comes under S.37(2) of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act 10 of 1960) (for short, called the Act) under which provision a fixed court-fee of Rs. 20/- is payable where the suit is for partition and separate possession of joint family property or property owned, jointly or in common, and the plaintiff is in joint possession. There can also be hardly any doubt that S.53(2) of the Act is the provision which governs the determination of the jurisdictional value. That Section runs as follows: "53- Suits not otherwise provided for (1) In a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the fee payable under this Act shall be the same. (2) In a suit where fee is payable under this Act at a fixed rate, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value or where it is not possible to estimate it at a money value such amount as the plaintiff shall state in the plaint." Under sub-section 2 of the above section, the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction is to be the market value since, for the relief of partition, the court-fee payable is at a fixed rate. 3. The plaintiff valued his 1/16 share in the plaint properties at Rs. 2968.75. He estimated the value of his share by adopting the method of capitalising the gross profit. The contention of the'petitioner was that the market value of the joint family properties has been under estimated and if the proper market value is taken the share of the plaintiff would be above the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff 's Court. The court below, relying on a decision of this court reported in Kunju Mohammed Kunju v. Kunhu Auwa Ummal (1968 KLT. 967), repelled the contention of the petitioner. It is not indicated in the order of the lower court on what basis it came to the conclusion that the market value as shown in the plaint is correct. The decision relied on by the learned Munsiff no doubt contains a stray observation that it was doubtful whether the relief of partition claimed by a member who is already in joint possession is one which can be estimated at a money value at all. But then, the said observation was obiter as will be clear from a later observation in the same judgment to the effect that the question did not however arise "for decision in the present case." If the learned judge who decided 1968 KLT. But then, the said observation was obiter as will be clear from a later observation in the same judgment to the effect that the question did not however arise "for decision in the present case." If the learned judge who decided 1968 KLT. 967 meant to lay down that the relief of partition in the case where a plaintiff who is in joint possession, claims separate possession is incapable of being valued in terms of money, then, with great respect I must say that I am unable to agree with the said proposition The relief that is sought by a person who is in joint possession for partition is clearly one in respect of his share in the properties and what he seeks by way of relief in the suit is to have his share separately demarcated and possession transferred over to him. Therefore the relief clearly relates to his share of the properties and the jurisdictional value in that case must of course be the value of that share. I am unable to understand why the relief is incapable of valuation. The prayer of the plaintiff in such case would be to have his share separated and possession recovered from the other members who are in joint possession. It is not possible to hold that the relief in such a case cannot be estimated at a money value and it is clear that the second part of S.53 (2) cannot apply. 4. Now, coming to the facts of this case it is clear that there has been no enquiry regarding the market value of the property as contemplated by S.19 of the Act. Under S.19, where there is dispute regarding the question whether the property has been properly valued or not, the court may hold an enquiry and may issue commission for the purpose of ascertaining the proper market value of the property. Obviously, the lower court did not conduct an enquiry as contemplated under S.19 because it was under the wrong impression that the subject-matter of the suit was incapable of valuation. This is therefore clearly a case where the lower court has acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the court below is set aside. This is therefore clearly a case where the lower court has acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 5. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the court below is set aside. The lower court is directed to consider the question of jurisdictional value in the light of S.19 of the Act in the circumstances, there will be no order regarding costs. Allowed.