Proceedings of the Legislative Council of the United Provinces. Tuesday 24th May 1938. Official Report

(1) where the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title was a party to the decree or the instrument according to the value of the subject-matter and (2) where he or his predecessor-in-title was not a party to the decree or instrument according to one-fifth of the value of the subject-matter and such value shall be deemed to be— if the whole decree or instrument is involved in the suit the amount f [...] That suit would certainly be governed by sub-section (2) " where he or his predecessor-ititle was not a party to the decree or instrument according to one-fifth of the value of the subject-matter and such value shall be deemed to be—if the whole decree or instrument is involved in the suit the amount for which or value of the property in respect of which the decree was passed or the instrumen [...] Then we take the case of the property to which the plaintiff may have some title is of a lesser value then the decree which is one-fifth of the value of the property. [...] The object of the suit is to prevent the diversion of the property to another place : the object is merely to get rid of the nearer heir. [...] " (vi-A) In suits for partition— according to one quarter of the value of the plaintiff's share of the property and according to the full value of such share if on the date of presenting the plaint the plaintiff is out of possession of the"THE UNITED PRoVINCES COURT FEES (AMENDMENT) BILL 787 property of which he claims to he a co-parcener or co-owner and his claim to be a co-parcener or co-owner