Valuation for Partition Suit must be based on Plaint Averments regardless of Defendants' Allegations of Ouster.

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a partition suit (O.S. No. 291/2013) asserting that the suit property, though registered in the name of the late Raghunath in 1967, was acquired using joint family nucleus and remains joint family property

The plaintiff claimed joint possession and valued the suit under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.

During trial, based on admissions in the plaintiff’s cross-examination suggesting Raghunath had long-term possession, the defendants filed I.A. No. XII seeking rejection of the plaint for improper valuation

The Trial Court allowed the application, directing the plaintiff to pay court fees on the market value under Section 35(1) of the Act, reasoning that the plaintiff was not in joint possession

Section 35 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, distinguishing between sub-section (1) (exclusion from possession requiring ad valorem fee) and sub-section (2) (joint possession requiring a fixed fee)

Possession of one co-owner is possession of all unless "ouster" is proved, as established in Smt. Nanjamma v. Smt. Akkayamma and B.S. Malleshappa v. Koratagigere B. Shivalingappa

Venkatesh R. Desai v. Smt. Pushpa Hosmani regarding the trial of valuation as a non-preliminary issue

Manohar Lal Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal regarding procedural law advancing justice

The High Court observed that valuation must be determined based on plaint averments, not the defense

Since the plaintiff pleaded joint family character and constructive possession, the Trial Court erred by prematurely concluding ouster based on isolated cross-examination answers

The Court clarified that a stranger purchaser (Respondent 13/14) merely steps into the shoes of the alienating co-parcener; such a sale doesn't extinguish the "constructive joint possession" of other co-parceners until a formal partition by metes and bounds occurs

Forcing a non-alienating co-parcener to pay ad valorem fees at the threshold based on a disputed alienation would render Section 35(2) "otiose" and obstruct access to justice

Disputed questions of possession intertwined with the merits must be decided after a full trial, not at an interlocutory stage

The High Court quashed the Trial Court’s order dated 08.01.2020 and directed the trial to proceed on all issues. The question of valuation and court fee shall remain open for determination at the time of final disposal based on findings regarding the nature of the property and actual possession. If the trial concludes the plaintiff was indeed excluded, deficit fees can be collected before drawing the final decree.