CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) 1. This revision petition coming up for orders is taken up for final hearing and disposed of. The counsel for the parties have been heard. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this revision petition may be briefly stated and they are as follows: petitioners are the plaintiffs in original suit No. 4229 of 1984 on the file of the 18th additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. They filed the suit inter-alia alleging that the suit schedule properties A and B are the self acquired properties of the father of the first and second plaintiff and husband of the third plaintiff and that the first defendant was squating on the property with his family and collecting rents from schedule A properly and utilising the rent all for himself to the exclusion of the other sharers and therefore, they prayed for a decree for partition of the suit schedule properties. by metes and bounds and for putting them in separate possession thereof. ( 3 ) THE first defendant in his written statement contended inter- alia first that he purchased the shares of the plaintiffs, that he had performed the marriages of some of the plaintiffs, bearing all the expenses namely plaintiffs 4 and 5 and he had incurred a large amount as expense for repairs of the building in schedule B property and that the plaintiffs had no right whatsoever to claim share in the properties; that they had grossly under valued their relief seeking separate possession. Therefore, the suit should be valued under Section 35 (1) of the Karnataka court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and payment of fixed court fee of Rs. 200/- has wholely untenable and such an issue should be framed in regard to under valuation and non-payment of adequate Court fee and that should be decided first. ( 4 ) ON such pleadings, the Court framed an issue whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff was sufficient or not and thereafter came to the conclusion that the suit fell under Section 35 (1) of the Karnataka Court fees and Suits Valuation Act and therefore, the plaintiffs must pay the Court fee on the market value of the property, the possession of which was sought. Therefore, the present revision being aggrieved by the same. ( 5 ) IN this revision petition that the parties are Hindus is not in doubt. Therefore, the present revision being aggrieved by the same. ( 5 ) IN this revision petition that the parties are Hindus is not in doubt. That the plaint allegation clearly assert that they are members of the joint family and claim a share in their deceased father's properties also is not in doubt or cannot be doubted. It has also come in the case that the first defendant is enjoying the property and he is in possession and occupation of schedule B property along with his family. Therefore, the suit essentially is a suit for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for the sharers to be put in possession of their respective shares. That is not the same as seeking possession of the property of which they have lost possession. Even if such a thing is pleaded as in fact the vague and alternate plea taken by the defendant leading to such an issue being raised having regard to the allegation that he had purchased the share of the plaintiffs, that would be a matter to be decided after trail and evidence is lead. There may not be any assumption that such purchase is valid or in fact true and question of possession decided on that face plea. ( 6 ) THE cardinal principle which should guide the Court in regard to suit valuation is a averment in the plaint and not the defence taken in the written statement. If that cardinal principle is borne in mind, one is not left with any doubt that the suit is one for simple partition and separate possession of their shares, which should be decided in accordance with law and after issues are raised and evidence is led. If they are not entitled to partition, then the suit will be dismissed. If the suit is decreed and their shares are determined, then the preliminary decree will be drawn up and in the final decree proceedings they will be called upon to pay the full court fee. ( 7 ) THERE is total misdirection to the pleadings by the trial Court to bring the suit under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation act, merely because it was contended by the defendant that the plaintiffs have admitted the exclusive possession of the defendant of the suit schedule properties. ( 7 ) THERE is total misdirection to the pleadings by the trial Court to bring the suit under sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation act, merely because it was contended by the defendant that the plaintiffs have admitted the exclusive possession of the defendant of the suit schedule properties. ( 8 ) IN fact this was the sheet anchor of the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the respondent - defendant, Sri Purushothama rao. He drew my attention to paragraph 8 of the plaint in which the word 'exclusively' has been used by the plaintiffs. But then that 'exclusively' refers to the enjoyment of the income from schedule A property by the first defendant and does not refer to exclusive possession. ( 9 ) EVEN the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent defendant does not support his view. He drew my attention to the decision of the Supreme court in NEELAVATHI v NATARAJAN, reported in 1980 (1) Karnataka Law Journal, short Notes Item No. 126, arising under the tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation act. Section 37 of the said Act, which is in pari-materia with Section 35 of the Karnataka court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, feel for consideration. While considering that, the Supreme Court has held as under:"court fee is payable under Section 37 (1) T. N. Act, if the plaintiff is 'excluded' from possession of the joint property. The general principle of law is that in the case of co-owners, possession of one is possession of all unless ouster or exclusion is proved. To continue to be in joint possession in law, it is not necessary that the plaintiff should be in actual possession of the whole or part of the property. Equally it is not necessary that he should be getting a share or some income from the property. So long as his right to a share and the nature of the property is not disputed, the law presumes that he is in joint possession. To apply Section 37 (1) there should be a clear and specific averment in the plaint that plaintiff has been excluded from joint possession. An averment that plaintiff could not remain in joint possession would not amount to exclusion from possession. To apply Section 37 (1) there should be a clear and specific averment in the plaint that plaintiff has been excluded from joint possession. An averment that plaintiff could not remain in joint possession would not amount to exclusion from possession. " ( 10 ) FROM the above it is clear that as long as the plaintiffs claim to be the heirs of deceased father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and allege that the property is the joint family property, the suit cannot loss its colour of being a partition suit merely because the defendant contends otherwise. The decision assists the plaintiffs more than it does the defendant. ( 11 ) IN view of the above, the revision is allowed. The order passed by the Court below is set aside with a direction to the court to proceed with the suit as if it is only a suit for partition and nothing more. Parties will bear their respective costs of this petition. --- *** --- .