ORDER 1. A suit for partition of immovable properties shown in 'B' schedule and movable properties shown in 'C' schedule was filed by the revision petitioners who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 27/96 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode. As per the plaint allegations, defendants 1 to 4 are sharers in immovable property and defendant 5 though has no share in immovable properties is a sharer in 'C' schedule movables. The suit is instituted on the basis of a Will alleged to have been executed by deceased Ammukutty Amma, bequeathing her properties in favour of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4.Defendants 6 to 11 were impleaded, going by the plaint allegations, as they are to be paid Rs. 2,500 as per the Will. There is a further allegation in the plaint that the plaintiffs are in joint possession along with defendants 1 to 4, and what they prayed is for separation of their joint status and declaration of their share in respect of movable and immovable properties. 2. Defendants 1 to 4 admitted the Will and supported the claim for partition. On the other hand defendants 6 to 11 contended that the Will is not genuine and unenforceable for the reasons stated in the written statement. They further contended that as legal heirs of deceased Ammukutty Amma, they are in exclusive possession of the property. 3. The suit was preceded by a notice and as a reply to the same defendants 6 to11. had contended that the Will is not genuine. It is pertinent to note in this context that there is no contention raised by the contesting defendants that the suit is riot maintainable in law and that the court fee paid under S.35(2) of the Court Fees Act is insufficient. 4. While so, the court below framed additional issue No. 1 which reads as follows: "Whether the frame of the suit as one for partition simpliciter without a prayer for declaration of the Will as against defendants 6 to 11 is proper?" The court below answered this issue against the plaintiffs and held that plaintiffs should have prayed for a declaration of title as against defendants 6 to 11. This order passed on Additional issue No. 1, dated 30th October, 1998 is under challenge. 5. The court below gave very many reasons for its finding. This order passed on Additional issue No. 1, dated 30th October, 1998 is under challenge. 5. The court below gave very many reasons for its finding. According to the court below, that when the validity of the Will was disputed by defendants 6 to 11, the plaintiffs should have prayed for a declaration that the Will is genuine and enforceable against defendants 6 to 11. 6. As already stated that the allegations in the plaint is that plaintiffs are in joint possession along with defendants 1 to 4. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiffs derive their title on the basis of the Will executed by Ammukutty Amma. The Will has also been produced before the Court. As already stated, there is no issue regarding the maintainability of the suit in the form framed. There is also no issue regarding the court fee paid in the suit. When the plaintiffs allege joint possession long with defendants 1 to 4, the court fee need be paid only under S.37(2) of the Court Fees Act, which the plaintiffs have paid. In the circumstances, the court cannot insist that unless there is a prayer for declaration of title, the suit as framed is not maintainable. The conclusion arrived at by the court below in this regard has no support of law. In the circumstances, the finding on additional issue No. 1 is set aside. As answer to additional issue No. 1, it is held that the suit as framed is maintainable even without a prayer for declaration of the Will as against respondents 6 to 11The revision is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. There will be no order as to costs