S. N. BHARGAV, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a Revision Petition against the Order dated 30th Nov. 1993 of learned Civil Judge, North at Gangtok holding that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff are grossly undervalued and require the plaintiff to correct the valuation within thirty days failing which the plaint shall be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (b) of the C. P. C. ( 2 ) THE Plaintiff petitioner filed a civil suit in the trial Court for declaration and partition claiming the following reliefs:-"17. The plaintiff, therefore, prays for a decree:- (a) for declaration that plaintiff No. 1 has one fifth share, plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 have one fifth share jointly and plaintiffs Nos. 6 to 10 have also one fifth share jointly in the disputed properties. (b) for a declaration that defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 has one fifth share each in the said properties. (c) for a preliminary decree for partition of the disputed properties according to the respective shares of the parties. (d) for a final decree for partition of the suit properties according to the aforesaid shares of the parties by metes ad bounds by appointing a Commissioner, if necessary. (e) for appointment of receiver. (f) for injunction. (g) for any other relief or reliefs that the Court may deem fit and proper. (h) for all costs. " ( 3 ) AFTER service, defendants /non-petitioners instead of filing a written statement, filed preliminary objection on the point of jurisdiction and valuation. His contention was that the value of the suit property as claimed by the plaintiff comes to Rupees 24,00000/- whereas the petitioner has grossly undervalued the suit. In the plaint in paragraph 16, it has been stated as under:-"16. That for the purpose of Court-fees and jurisdiction, the suit being a partition suit, is valued for declaration at Rs. 100. 00 (Rupees one hundered) only and for partition also at Rs. 100. 00 (Rupees one hundred) only and the Court-fees on the said valuation amounting to Rs. 200. 00 (Rupees two hundred) only @ 12. 5% is deposited in the State Bank of Sikkim, Gangtok. 100. 00 (Rupees one hundered) only and for partition also at Rs. 100. 00 (Rupees one hundred) only and the Court-fees on the said valuation amounting to Rs. 200. 00 (Rupees two hundred) only @ 12. 5% is deposited in the State Bank of Sikkim, Gangtok. " ( 4 ) LEARNED Civil Judge while passing the impugned order has mentioned that this is a suit not only for partition but also for recovery of possession after partition of the properties of which the defendant No. 1 has been in possession for more than forty years. ( 5 ) IT may be mentioned here that the State of Sikkim became a part of India in 1975 and some of the Central Acts were made applicable to the State, but suprisingly, many important Acts including the Court-fees Act of 1870 as also the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 have not been extended and the State of Sikkim is still governed by the Notification issued in this connection by His Highness the Maharaja of Sikkim which provides that the Court-fees shall be payable and chargeable @ 2 Annas in a Rupee on the value of 'claim' put and the jurisdiction is governed by the Sikkim Civil Courts Act, 1978 S. 16 (1) which provides that the jurisdiction of the Civil Judge shall extend to all suits of which the value does not exceed Rs. 50,000. 00. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently submitted that though the Indian Court-fees Act and Suits Valuation Act have so far not been extended to Sikkim yet, the principles therein should be applied in Sikkim as there is no provision in the Sikkim Court-Fees Act for providing Court-fees on a declaratory suit or a partition suit. In this connection, he has placed reliance on AIR 1981 Sikkim 34 Union of India v. Ashok Tshering Lama. In this connection, he has placed reliance on AIR 1981 Sikkim 34 Union of India v. Ashok Tshering Lama. He has further placed reliance on AIR 1955 Mysore 140 Karibasappa v. Jademallappa wherein it has been held that if a member of the joint family files a suit for a declaration that he is entitled to a share in the joint family properties by metes and bounds and alleges that he is in constructive possession of the properties, he is liable to pay fixed Court-fee under Schedule II, Art. 17 (vi) and that the question whether the plaintiff is in possession of the joint family properties constructively or otherwise for the purpose of levying Court-fee should be determined on the allegations made in the plaint. Merely because the defendants deny that the plaintiff was enjoying possession of the suit schedule properties, the nature of the suit is not altered and in this connection, he drew my attention to AIR 1957 Cal 651, Nilmoni Haldar v. Upendra Nath Haldar and AIR 1968 Tripura 11, His Highness Maharaj Kirit Bikram Kishore Dev Barma Manikya Bahadur v. Maharaj Kumar Giridhari Kishore Dev Barma Bahadur. He has placed reliance on AIR 1978 SC 1607 Lakshmi Ammal v. K. M. Madhavakrishnan wherein it has been held that where in a partition suit plaintiff alleges that she is in joint possession and is seeking partition and separate possession of her half-share in the suit properties as heir of deceased, Court-fee is payable under S. 37 (2) of the Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act of which corresponds to Art. 17 (B) of the Central Act. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has submitted that the defendants had submitted their preliminary objections in writing that the Court-fee paid is insufficient and the suit has been undervalued and had further asserted that the value of the suit property as claimed by the plaintiff was Rs. 24,00000. 00. The plaintiff had filed written objection to these preliminary objections wherein, it was never controverted that the value of the suit property was not Rupees 24,00000/- but something different. 24,00000. 00. The plaintiff had filed written objection to these preliminary objections wherein, it was never controverted that the value of the suit property was not Rupees 24,00000/- but something different. Since the State of Sikkim is governed by Sikkim Court-Fees Act, reference or reliance cannot be placed on the Indian Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act as the same have not so far been extended and enforced in Sikkim and the Sikkim law is protected by Art. 371f of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance on AIR 1976 Pat 119, Naresh Singh v. Jirekhan Choudhary where it has been held that in a suit for title-cum-partition, Court-fee is payable ad valorem on the value of the share claimed. He has also placed reliance on AIR 1977 Ori 85, Mst. Dura Deo v. Pirobti Dei wherein it was observed that in a suit for partition involving adjudication of title of plaintiff to the share claimed, value of the whole property and not the share claimed by the plaintiff would be considered for determination of jurisdiction as well as for computation of Court-fees. He also drew my attention to AIR 1979 Ori 71, Babaji Charan Sahu v. Netrananda Sahu where it has been held that in a simple suit for partition the value of the entire property for partition determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. ( 8 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the plaint, preliminary objections, written reply of the plaintiff to these objections as also the impugned order and authorities cited at Bar. At the outset, I would like to mention that it is really very strange that the Indian Court-fees Act and Suits Valuation Act have not been extended to the State of Sikkim though Sikkim became a part of India as early as in 1975. It is high time the Government considers and takes steps to bring the laws of Sikkim at par with other States in India and the laws which are governing the rest of India should also be extended to the State of Sikkim so that nobody complains of any discrimination or a preferential treatment or otherwise and this State also comes in the Mainstream. But in view of the fact that there is a law regarding Court-fee applicable to the State of Sikkim and the same is protected by Art. 371f of the Constitution, we should not rely and take recourse to the Indian Court-fees Act. However, at the same time, one cannot forget the fact that the State of Sikkim is a part of India and the residents of State of Sikkim are Indian citizens and also that the Indian Court-fees Act provides for payment of Court-fees in a suit for a declaratory decree and the consequential reliefs and enforce all rights of share in joint family property according to the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint, whereas the Sikkim Court-Fees Act does not provide separately for a declaratory suit. It only provides for payment of Court-fees @ 2 Annas in a Rupee on the value of 'claim' put. It nowhere defines the word 'claim' and it does not specifically say about the valuation of the property in dispute. The word 'claim' as taken in grammatical meaning, will be the 'prayer' 'relief' claimed in the plaint. I have already quoted the prayer (relief) clause in the plaint which is only for a declaration that the plaintiff No. 1 has 1/5 share and plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 5 have 1/5 share jointly and plaintiffs Nos. 6 to 10 have also 1/5 share jointly in the disputed properties. Further declarations that the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 have 1/5 share each in the said properties has also been sought. He has claimed a preliminary decree for partition of the disputed properties according to the respective shares of the parties and further a final decree for partition of the suit properties according to the aforesaid shares of the parties by metes and bounds by appointing a Commissioner. The only 'claim' which has been put by the plaintiff can be found in the relief clause and in the present case, the plaintiff has claimed only a declaration and has nowehere claimed title of the properties. The only relief he has sought is for a declaration that he is entitled to a particular share in the joint family properties and seeks for a division of the properties by metes and bounds. The only relief he has sought is for a declaration that he is entitled to a particular share in the joint family properties and seeks for a division of the properties by metes and bounds. In his plaint, he has also asserted that he is in constructive possession of the properties and since the claim of the plaintiff cannot be evaluated in terms of rupee, the plaintiff is at liberty to put his own value for declaration and partition. In the present case, the plaintiff has put his value for declaration at Rs. 100. 00 and for partition at Rs. 100. 00 and the Court-fees has been paid on that basis. ( 9 ) A suit for partition of this type always involves an implict prayer for a declaration of the plaintiff's right to the extent of the share claimed by them in the properties in dispute as mentioned in the plaint but that will not change the nature and character of the suit for partition. Such declaration is inherent in a suit for partition. ( 10 ) THE learned trial Court has wrongly assumed that the plaintiff has also claimed recovery of possession after partition of the properties. The question whether the plaintiff is in constructive possession or in joint possession cannot be gone into at this stage and just because the defendant questions and denies the plaintiff's assertion, the nature of the suit is not altered. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court was not right in holding that the plaintiff should pay Court -fees on a sum of Rupees 24,00000/ -. If that were so, the Civil Judge will have no jurisdiction to hear the suit. ( 11 ) IN the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Civil Judge, North, dated 30/11/1993 is quashed and the preliminary objections filed by the defendant are overruled. Revision allowed. --- *** --- .