JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- The revision is against the order of the appellate Court directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee for a Will which is challenged in the suit. The suit proceeds on the basis that the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/6th share as a heir to his mother who died on 10.05.2003. The defendant has propounded a Will claiming the property of the mother and, therefore, the plaintiff’s contention was that the Will was not true. The trial Court, it appears, had passed an interim order directing the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee which was a subject of challenge before this Court in revision. Before the civil revision got disposed of, the trial of the suit itself had been concluded and the suit was dismissed. The revision was, therefore, rendered infructuous. 2. While dismissing the suit, the Court has not entered any specific finding on the court fee objection that had been raised by the defendant. The appeal has been filed challenging this decree and again, the appellate Court has allowed for an objection to be brought by the defendant-respondent that the suit has not been properly valued and the plaintiff should be directed to pay court fee on the plaint and as a necessary consequence, in the manner of valuation in appeal. The court has allowed the application and upheld the objection regarding the valuation of suit in appeal. 3. In all matters relating to joint possession or partition, it is the plaint averment that shall decide the issue of court fee. If the plaintiff has contended that he is a joint owner of the property for 1/6th share of a property that belonged to the mother unless the plaintiff was excluded from possession by a hostile assertion, the plaintiff’s averment must stand, to allow for the valuation to be made as in joint possession. If the plaintiff has also contended that the Will propounded by the defendant was not true, it did not require to be set aside, for, the fundamental precept in law is that the person that propounds the document has to prove it. The plaintiff was not required to make any valuation for the claim that the Will was not true. If the plaintiff has also contended that the Will propounded by the defendant was not true, it did not require to be set aside, for, the fundamental precept in law is that the person that propounds the document has to prove it. The plaintiff was not required to make any valuation for the claim that the Will was not true. If there had been a direction by the trial Court that the suit had not been properly valued, I would find that this Court did not have an occasion to adjudicate on the same and, therefore, it cannot be said to be conclusive as regards the plaintiff. The counsel for the respondents points out that there is not even a ground of appeal against the direction given at the interim stage. An interim order which will have a direct bearing to the disposal of the suit could be a subject of ground of appeal under Section 105 CPC. If the interim order relating to the frame of suit had not been reaffirmed, then it should only be taken that the Court has not adjudicated on the valuation in suit. 4. The Court was in error in directing the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on the objection taken by the respondents. I have already observed that the person that propounds the Will alone has to prove the Will and there is no need to set aside the Will or value the relief, if such a relief is sought. The plaintiff may ignore the Will as invalid and he is not required to value the same and the valuation as made, on the basis of the averment in plaint must be taken as appropriate. The direction given by the court below is set aside. The revision petition is allowed. ---------0.B.S.0------------