JUDGMENT : This appeal by a defendant is directed against the preliminary decree for partition and separate possession passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mulabagal. Suit filed by the first respondent has been decreed in part. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 have been held as entitled for 1/4th share each, in item Nos.1 to 16 of plaint ‘A’ schedule property and the plaint ‘B’ schedule items. Plaintiff has been held entitled to recover mesne profits, under Order XX Rule 12 CPC, from the date of suit till recovery of her share from defendant No.4. Claim made for share by partition in respect of item Nos.17 and 18 of plaint ‘A’ schedule properties has been dismissed. 2. Suit was valued under S.35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. The plaintiff claimed 1/5th share and valued the same at Rs.5,60,000/- and paid a fixed court fee of Rs.200/on the plaint. 4. Registry has raised objections as to the maintainability of this appeal, in view of S.19(1) of the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act and also with reference to the decision in the case of THIBBAIAH Vs. DESIGOWDA ANDOTHERS, reported in (1992) 3 KAR.L.J. 745 (DB). 5. Plaintiff’s suit was for partition of her share in the suit properties. She sought that her undivided 1/5th share in the suit properties be converted into divided 1/5th share and put her in separate possession. 6. Issue No.3 raised by the Trial Court was ‘whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the suit properties? By answering the said issue in the affirmative, the suit has been decreed, as above. 7. Undeniably, the plaintiff valued her undivided share in the suit properties at Rs.5,60,000/- and paid a fixed court fee of Rs.200/-. 8. In the case of Thibbaiah (supra), considering the applicability and the scope of the provisions of S.35(2) and S.50 of the Act and also S.4 of the Karnataka Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1989, it has been held as follows: “5. ……As already noted Section 35 provides for a fixed Court-fee which in turn depends on the value of the plaintiff’s share which will be the value to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.” 9. ……As already noted Section 35 provides for a fixed Court-fee which in turn depends on the value of the plaintiff’s share which will be the value to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court.” 9. Perusal of the said decision shows, that in the suit, the valuation of the plaintiff’s share in the plaint was shown as Rs.21,920/- for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction and the court fee of Rs.200/was paid, under S.35(2) of the Act and the valuation for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction was less than Rs.1 lakh. Having regard to the record of the case and the submissions made, that in partition suit, value for appellate jurisdiction is same as in trial, this Court directed the appellant to approach the District Court. 10. In the present case, the first respondent/plaintiff having valued her 1/5th share of suit properties at Rs.5,60,000/- and paid fixed Court fee of Rs.200/, the value for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction should be taken as the plaintiff’s share at Rs.5,60,000/and therefore, the objection raised by the Registry, noticed in para 4 supra, is justified. Since, the objection raised by the Registry is upheld, the appeal will have to be transferred. Therefore, the Registry is directed to transfer the appeal papers to the District Court, Kolar. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.