JUDGMENT.-The second defendant, who is the son of the first defendant, is the appellant. The respondent, who purchased the ‘A’ schedule property, a vacant site, from the first defendant, filed the suit for general partition of the ‘B ‘schedule properties and allotment of the ‘A’ schedule property to her share and also for the relief of accounting from 12th October, 1962, the date of the purchase of the ‘A’ schedule property from the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,500. The first defendant did not contest the suit. The appellant’s contention was that the proper Court-fee has not been paid and . that the appellant was not liable to account for profits. The respondent paid additional Court-fee of Rs. 158 and both the Courts below have found that the Court-fee paid thereafter was correct. The learned District Munsif granted a decree of partition as prayed for and also for accounting from 12th October, 1962, without any discussion, although the appellant has contended that he is not liable for the profits claimed by the respondent, which would mean that the respondent was not entitled to any relief of accounting as against him. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge has observed in his judgment that under law one co-owner in occupation of the property is bound to account for the income of the same to the other, who is out of possession and, therefore, it is plain that the 2nd defendant-appellant has to account to the plaintiff for the income of the property. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision in Nandula Bhdvani Sankaram v. Saladi Mangamma and others1, and contends that Court-fee has to be paid on the value of the alienee coparcener’s share in the property. That decision arose out of an application for amendment of the plaint and is not in point. In the decision referred to in the trial Court’s judgment (Nagendram v. Appayya2) it has been held specifically that the alienee could in no sense be described as a person in joint possession actually or even constructively along with the other members of the family and that the proper course on transposition of the original plaintiff as a defendant is to call upon the transferee-plaintiff to pay ad valorem Court-fee on the share of the properties which he was claiming. In view of the decision cited, I agree with the finding of the Court below regarding the Court-fee. 4. Admittedly, the ‘A’ schedule property is a vacant site. There is no allegation in the plaint that any income was derived from that property.