JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral) - The revision is against a direction given by the trial Court to the plaintiff to pay an ad valorem Court fee for the value of the property in a claim for partition made by the plaintiff. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff states that the suit property is held, according to the averments made in the plaint, in joint possession with the defendant and that he wants modification of possession by seeking for partition. There is no specific provision under the Court Fee Act, 1870 that provides for determination of valuation for the relief of partition and, therefore, Article 17(vi) of the Court Fee Act is attracted and a fixed Court fee alone is payable. The learned counsel also relies on a judgment of the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Asa Ram and Ors. v. Jagan Nath and Ors., (1934) AIR Lahore 563 that states that a suit of partition for joint property where the plaintiff alleges that he is in actual or constructive possession, the Court fee payable would be under Article 17(vi) and if the Court finds, on a plea being raised by the defendant, that plaintiff is found to be not in possession, the suit itself would be liable for dismissal unless the Court allows an amendment in the plaint on payment of requisite Court fee. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents refers me to a judgment of Delhi High Court in Meenakshi Gupta v. Naveen Mahajan, (2008) DLT 746 to hold that when a partition suit is brought by a joint co-owner who was excluded from joint ownership, ad valorem Court fee is alone payable. It is stating obvious that a person who is excluded from the possession cannot ask for a fixed valuation. It is a fundamental precept of law regarding Court fee that a Court fee should be directed to be paid only on the basis of averments made in the plaint and not what the defendant states in his defence. If the defendant contends that the plaintiff has been excluded, the defence itself will not be a sufficient circumstance to direct payment of ad valorem court fee. If the defendant contends that the plaintiff has been excluded, the defence itself will not be a sufficient circumstance to direct payment of ad valorem court fee. There is sufficient protection in law in the manner laid down by the Full Bench referred to above that the plaintiff faces a danger of dismissal of suit itself, unless the Court grants the plaintiff an opportunity of amendment and secure the relief on payment of court fee if it is found at the trial that the plaintiff contention regarding joint possession is not established. There is sufficient averment in the plaint regarding plaintiff’s joint possession and the court fee ought to have been only on a fixed basis in the manner contemplated under Article 17(vi) of the Court Fee Act. The order impugned is liable for being set aside and accordingly set aside. 3. The civil revision is allowed as above. ---------0.B.S.0------------