ORDER 1. Plaintiffs are assailing the order dated 6.12.2005, passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Ratlam. By the order impugned, Court below has decided Issue No. 10 as preliminary issue and directed plaintiffs to pay advalorem in respect of dwelling houses and plot for the purposes of jurisdiction. 2. Plaintiffs who are the daughter-in-law and grand-children of respondent No.1, Mangi Lal brought a suit claiming declaration, permanent injunction and possession. They claimed that petitioner No.1 is the widow and others are children of Ishwarlal, predeceased son of Mangi Lal. They claimed that the suit properties are undivided family properties having community of interest of coparceners and- unity of possession and enjoyment. Petitioners represent undivided coparcenary interest of Ishwar Lal, predeceased son of Respondent No. 1.-Mangi Lal. Respondent No. 1 without severance of the joint status, has executed a sale deed in respect part of the suit property in favour of respondent No. 2, therefore, petitioners who were not a party to the sale deed, have claimed that sale deed executed by Mangi Lal in favour of respondent No.2 is null and void. For the purposes of jurisdiction, they valued the claim in suit at Rs. 1,11,160/- and for the purposes of court-fees, relief of declaration an permanent injunction were valued at Rs. 500/- each, but claimed exemption from payment of court-fee. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 resisted the claim in suit. They denied plaint allegations as well joint community of interest and joint possession of late Ishwarlal in the suit properties. 4. Based upon pleadings, learned trial Judge framed as many as 13 issues. [See (Annexure A-4)]. Issue No. 10 pertained to valuation and payment of court-fee. By the order impugned, trial Judge tried Issue No. 10 as a preliminary issue and partly decided against petitioners with directions as mentioned above. 5. I have heard rival submissions at length and perused material available on record. 6. From the perusal of order impugned it is clear that learned trial Judge partly accepted the contentions of petitioners with regard valuation for the purposes of payment of court-fee for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of agriculture holdings and sale deed executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent 2, but directed payment of proper court-fee in respect of dwelling houses and plot as per valuation. The question is whether to that extent impugned order is sustainable? 7. The question is whether to that extent impugned order is sustainable? 7. Legal principles underlying suit valuation and payment of court fee are no longer res-intergra. Time and again, this has been examined and explained in quite a few decisions. In this connection, one may profitably refer to the decision of this Court reported in 2005 (II) MPWN 16 = 2005 (I) MPLJ 388 Jagdishchandra v. Mohanlal] which answers completely the controversy in present petition. In the aforesaid decision after noticing provisions of section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act vis-à-vis section 7 of the Court-fees Act-and various authorities', legal position is clarified. Following said decision, there is no hesitation or doubt in holding that the order impugned to the extent indicated above is unsustainable in law. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, impugned order so far as i4 directs petitioners to pay adequate court-fees results in the illegal exercise of jurisdiction and as such could not be sustained. 9. Consequently, impugned order dated 6.12.2005 is hereby set aside' to the extent indicated above. Accordingly this petition is allowed with costs. Respondent No. 1 shall bear and pay Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. fifteen hundred) as costs of this writ petition to petitioners.