JUDGMENT Fakhruddin, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18-10-2001 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Mahasamund, in Civil Suit No. 6-A/2001. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration of title, partition and separate possession in respect of suit land and mesne profit. It was contended that Bhagatram was the husband of respondent No. 1. He died in 1986. The suit property was his self-acquired property. Since they found that the name of defendant No. 1/appellant has been mutated, they filed the suit. The appellant denied the claim and contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had surrendered their right in favour of the appellant taking Rs. 1,50,000/-. During the course of hearing, Shailendri Bai/plaintiff No. 1 examined herself on 14-2-2001. The defendant Kailash Bai did not enter into the witness box. Her husband Chandrashekhar Naik appeared. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed three issues, which are recorded in Paragraph 5 of the order. The Court thereafter proceeded with the matter considering the evidence of Shailendra Bai (P.W. 1) and also that of defendant witness No. 1 Chandrashekhar Naik. The learned Trial Judge has found that it was the self-acquired property of Bhagatram. He died in 1986. After his death all the parties i.e., plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 will get 1/3rd share. The Court below has found that no document has been filed in support of the contention of the defendant No. 1 that the plaintiffs had relinquished their right in favour of the defendant No. 1 by taking Rs. 1,50,000/-. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that even if there is no surrender deed in writing, but the Court below ought to have held that the plaintiffs had surrendered the property. 6. The main question is whether the plaintiffs relinquished their share by taking Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the appellant. There is no document to show that there was any such transaction and the plaintiffs had surrendered their right in favour of the respondent No. 1/appellant. Kailash Bai did not appear into witness box. Her husband Chandrashekhar Naik appeared. He stated that this transaction was not recorded. There was no writing or no registry has taken place. There is no document to show that there was any such transaction and the plaintiffs had surrendered their right in favour of the respondent No. 1/appellant. Kailash Bai did not appear into witness box. Her husband Chandrashekhar Naik appeared. He stated that this transaction was not recorded. There was no writing or no registry has taken place. The learned Trial Court has considered this statement of the witness. There is no relinquishment deed as such. The plea of surrendering the share or giving money has been disbelieved. This Court has again considered all these questions and has gone through the entire evidence. The Court below has rightly held that the parties are entitled to 1/3rd share each. There is no infirmity in the impugned order in this regard. 7. So far as second ground regarding non-payment of Court-fee in the suit under Section 35 of the Court Fees Act is concerned, this ground was not urged before the Court below and it is being taken for the first time. Even otherwise, the matter of Court-fee is between the plaintiffs and the State. The plaintiff No. 1 is a widow. 8. This Court has also gone through the entire evidence and also heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any ground to justify the interference in the impugned judgment and decree. 9. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, in the opinion of this Court there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree. 10. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs as per scale.