Short Note : 1. The material facts giving rise to this revision petition briefly are as follows : The petitioner is the legal representative of deceased plaintiff Purushottamrao, who instituted a suit for declaration of his title to the suit land. The plaintiff also claimed partition and possession of half the suit land. For purposes of Court-fees, the plaintiff valued the suit for the relief of possession at twenty times the land revenue and paid Court-fees accordingly. The suit was resisted by the defendants inter alia on the ground that the valuation made by the plaintiff for purposes of jurisdiction and Court fees was not proper. Based on this plea, the trial Court framed an issue (Issue No. 12) and treating it as a preliminary issue, directed the plaintiff to pay Court-fees in accordance with section 7 (vi) (a) of the Court-Fees Act, 1870. Evidence about market value was then led and the trial Court, by its impugned order, held that the value of the plaintiff's share was Rs.4.500 and hence he should pay Court fees on a sum of Rs. 4,500. Aggrieved by that order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. Held: Shri Waghmare, learned counsel for the applicant, was heard. None appeared for the non-applicants. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant, I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. It seems that the attention of the trial Court was not invited to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Balu v. Fundibai ( 1971 JLJ 978 ). Under section 7 (vi) (b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, in a suit for partition where the plaintiff is but of possession, the suit is to be valued for purposes of Court-fees according to the full value of the share of the plaintiff. The Explanation to that provision provides that the value of the property shall be the market value which shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with paragraph (v) of section 7. The trial Court has not given any finding on the question as to whether the suit land is separately assessed to land revenue or not as on that question will depend the computation of the market value of the plaintiff’s share. The trial Court has not given any finding on the question as to whether the suit land is separately assessed to land revenue or not as on that question will depend the computation of the market value of the plaintiff’s share. It appears that the trial Court has ignored the decision of the Court in Balu v. Fundibai (supra) and has passed the impugned order, which deserves to be set aside. 2. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated 16th January 1976 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The finding given by the trial Court on issue No. 12 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to decide that issue afresh in the light of the aforesaid observations and the decision of this Court in Balu v. Fundibai (Supra): Revision allowed.