Judgment S. K. Choudhuri, J. 1. This revision by the plaintiffs is directed against the order dated 11.7.75 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Sitamarhi in partition suit no.7 of 1973 holding that the plaintiffs are liable to pay ad valoram court-fee on the valuation of the share claimed in the property of Banshi Mahato. 2. The plaintiffs case in short as stated In the plaint is as follows. The common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants first and second parties was one bhulu Mahto alias Raghu Mahto. He had three sons Banshi, Madho and Lalo. Madhos branch is represented by defendant no.12. Lalo died leaving behind five sons, namely Nunu, Gulam, Rupan, Shibdhani and Ramdhani. According to the plaintiffs Rupan died issueless and joint with hfs brothers and therefore, his share on his death went by survivorship to his brothers. Nunus descendants are defendants 1 to 6. Shibdhanis descendants are defendants 7 to 9 and RamdHon s branch is represented by defendants 10 and 11. Gulams wife was Mst. Etawaria. Their daughter Mst. Mohini is plaintiff no.3. Plaintiff no.1 (who is petitioner no.1 in this application) is the son of plaintiff no.3 and plaintiff no.2 is the son of plaintiff no.1. 3. The plaintiffs case is that the three brothers, namely Banshi, Madho and lalo separated amongst themselves but there was no partition amongst them. The further case of the plaintiffs is that Gulam who was their ancestor was adopted as karta putra of Banshi, as such the plaintiffs have claimed that Gulam inherited l/4th share in the property of Lalo that is he got l/12th by inheritance. According to the plaintiffs Gulam was karta putra of Bansi and therefore he also inherited the share of Bansi on latters death which was l/3rd. Thus Gulam got 5/12th share in the ancestral properties. 4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that Gulam, during his life time made a gift dated 9.9.42 with regard to some land oat of love and affection in favour of plaintiff no 1 who was put in possession. It is said that Gulam died in 1945 and his widow Mt. Etwaria executed a deed of gift dated 24.9.46 in the name of plaintiff no, 1 with consent of plaintiff no.3 with regard to some of the properties inherited by her on the death of her husband Gulam. It is said that Gulam died in 1945 and his widow Mt. Etwaria executed a deed of gift dated 24.9.46 in the name of plaintiff no, 1 with consent of plaintiff no.3 with regard to some of the properties inherited by her on the death of her husband Gulam. According to the plaintiffs the properties which were left with Etwaria after the gift were inherited by her daughter, plaintiff no, 3 on the death of Etwaria. Plaintiff no,3 however, according to the plaintiffs case surrendered the properties inherited by her from her mother in favour of her son plaintiff no.1. It is said that plaintiff no.3 has been made a party to avoid further dispute. Thus the plaintiffs have claimed 5/12th share in Schedule I properties of the plaint. 5. The plaintiffs case further is that defendant no.12 who is defendant second party sold several properties to some of the defendants third party who have been made defendants 13 to 21 and also to defendant 1st party and plaintiff no.1 though there was no partition. It has also been averred in the plaint that the land sold to plaintiff no 1 was purchased in the name of his son who is plaintiff no.2 and these lands have been described in schedule 2 of the plaint. There is an averments in paragraph 14 of the plaint that the State of Bihar (defendant no.13) acquired some lands for construction of a Bandh and plaintiff no.1 had sold some lands to one Bhuban Rai who has been made defendant no.20 and has given some land in bharna to defendant no.21 According to the plaintiffs the defendants-third party are said to be thus purchasers and bharnadars and hence they have been impleaded as pro forma defendants so that they may adjust their lands from the share of a particular party from whom they have purchased or taken in bharna. 6. The further averment in the plaint is that there was no partition by metes and bounds ard as difficulty is being experienced by the plaintiffs demand for partition was made which was refused and therefore they filed the present suit with the aforesaid allegations. 7. 6. The further averment in the plaint is that there was no partition by metes and bounds ard as difficulty is being experienced by the plaintiffs demand for partition was made which was refused and therefore they filed the present suit with the aforesaid allegations. 7. The property sought to be partitioned has been valued at rs.96,000/- and the plaintiffs share has been alleged to be of the value of rs.40,000/- and court fee of Rs.22.50 has been paid as being the court-fee payable in a partition suit. The plaintiffs have therefore claimed the relief that on adjudication of the above facts by the court a preliminary decree may be passed in their favour and order for carving out a separate patti to the extent of plaintiffs 5/l2th share may be made. The further relief claimed is that a commissioner may be appointed for carving out a separate patti for the plaintiffs to the extent of 5/12th share in schedule 1 property and also in respect of lands mentioned in schedule 2 which have been purchased from defendant second party and the said decree may be made final and the plaintiffs be put in possession. 8. The stamp reporter of the court below pointed out that the State of bihar having been made party and the allegation in the plaint being that Gulam mahato could not be recorded in the revenue records it would amount to claiming a declaration of title against the State of Bihar that the revenue records were also wrong. He also reported that ad valoram court-fee is payable on Gulams share inasmuch as to that extent the suit should be treated to be a suit for declaration of title and consequential relief. 9. The court below heard the court fee matter aud decided that ad valoram court fee is payable on the valuation of the share claimed in the property of banshi Mahato. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner confined their argument only on the point which has been decided against the plaintiffs. I am threrefore confining my decision only on that point. 10. Mr. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner confined their argument only on the point which has been decided against the plaintiffs. I am threrefore confining my decision only on that point. 10. Mr. Parmeshwarprasad, learned counsel appearing in support of this application contended that the suit is a simple suit for partition and the court below acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in demanding ad valoram court fee in the property of Bansi which has ultimately come to the plaintiffs. According to the learned counsel the statement of facts that have been made in the plaint do not show any where within the four corners of the plaint that the court below has been called upon to investigate title of the plaintiffs in the suit lands and therefore ad valoram court fee was payable in Banshis share. 11. Mr. K. N. Jain, G. P. VI appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand contended that the order of the court below is perfectly justified and ad valoram court fee is payable on the property of Banshi which has been claimed by the plaintiffs on the ground that Gulam was adopted as ka ta putra of Bansi. Mr. Jain also pointed out that there are allegations that some of the defendants third party are purchasers from defendants second party who are strangers to the family of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 12 and therefore rd valoram court fee is payable and in that view of the matter the order of the court below should not be disturbed. This argument of Mr. Jain has been supported by Mr. Baijnath prasad no.2, learned counsel appearing on behalf of one of the defendants-opposite party no.9. 12. After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order as also the plaint it appears difficult to interfere with the impugned order. It is true that no claim has been made against any of the defendants third party and only averment has been made with regard to the acquisition of some land by the State of Bihar (defendant no.13) for construction of Bandh and purchase of some land by defendants third party from defendant second party and also sale of some of the lands by plaintiff no.1 in favour of defendant no.20 and bharna in favour of defendant no.21. The plaint having stated these facts further stated that the defendants third party have been made proforma defendants in the suit so that they as may adjust their lands from the shares of the particular party from whom they had purchased or taken bharna. Therefore, on this allegation it is difficult to accept the argument of Mr. Jain that ad valoram court-fee is payable because some of the strangers have been made party defendants in the partition suit. As pointed out above no relief has been claimed in the plaint challenging these alienations, rather purchases etc. by defendant third party have been accepted and have not been challenged in the plaint. Therefore, according to the allegation in the plaint before passing a decree for partition in favour of the plaintiffs, displacement of title of the defendants third party is not necessary. 13. Now coming to the relief it shows that the plaintiffs have claimed that on adjudication of the facts stated in the plaint a preliminary decree for partition may be passed. That being so, it is difficult to hold on reading the plaint as a whole that the plaintiffs have not asked for adjudication of their title in the share of Gulam which they claim to have derived from Guiana who in turn is alleged to have succeeded Bansi being his karta putra. Thus the court has been called upon expressly to adjudicate these facts stated in the plaint. It cannot, therefore, be said that ths court below acted with material irregularity in exercise of it jurisdiction in deciding the court-fee matter. I do not find any merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed but without any costs. 14. During the coutse of argument learned counsel appearing for the petitioners suggested that the Petitioners would suitably amend the plaint and the relief so as to avoid payment of ad valoram court-fee as demanded by the court below. It is not for this Court to say any thing in this regard one way or the other. No body can prevent the plaintiffs from filing an amendment petition in the court below. If so advised the plaintiffs may file such application without any delay and if such application is filed, the court below will dispose of the same in accordance with law. Application dismissed.