Short Note : 1. This revision has been filed by some of the defendants against the order of the trial Court holding that the suit is properly valued for the purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction and is triable by Civil Judge Class I. Held: The defendants in their written statement did not challenge the valuations but surprisingly enough though the suit was filed in the year 1965, the evidence was completed on 19-10-1972 and when the case was fixed for final arguments, the defendants moved an application for amendment of the written statement which has been allowed by the trial Court. Thereby, the progress of the suit has been unnecessary interrupted. All objections to Court-fees and jurisdiction have to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case before the settlement of the issues. Therefore, the application for amendment of the written statement challenging the valuation should not have been allowed. This apart, on going through the merits of the objections regarding Court-fees and jurisdiction, it is clear that the objections are without any substance and have been rightly rejected. 2. This being a suit for partition, the plaintiffs being out of possession and their claim that they are co-owners in under challenge, the case is governed by section 7 (vi-a) (b) of the Court-fees Act (M.P. Amendment) and the suit has to be valued according to the full value of the share claimed in the properties In the present case, the plaintiffs have claimed half share in the joint properties. The plaintiffs have given the details of the agricultural lands to be partitioned in schedule Kh. of the plaint. The learned trial Judge on perusal of the certified copies of Jamabandi and the records of settlement for the year 1923-24 has found that Khasra Nos. 17, 27, 54, 31, 99, 90, 138 and 96 have been assessed together and land revenue is fixed at Rs.150/-. Similarly, Khasra Nos.75, 78, 97 and 116 are assessed together and land revenue fixed is Rs.53.50 p. Regarding Khasra Nos.3/1 and 80/1, Malguzari Pattas have been filed and the land revenue shown is Rs. 45 and Rs. 22 respectively. Under section 15 (2) of the C.P. Tenancy Act, 1920, a Malguzar had the right to fix the rent payable by an occupancy tenant in which rent has not been fixed at settlement. 45 and Rs. 22 respectively. Under section 15 (2) of the C.P. Tenancy Act, 1920, a Malguzar had the right to fix the rent payable by an occupancy tenant in which rent has not been fixed at settlement. Under section 45 (4) of the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals and Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, the rent so payable by a tenant to the Malguzar would be deemed to be the land revenue after the vesting of the land in the State. Khasra No.142 is assessed to land revenue of Rs.64. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was justified in holding that these lands have been properly valued at 20 times the land revenue under section 7 (v) (d) of the Court Fees Act read with section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. Revision dismissed.