KHARE, J. - (1.)THIS is a first appeal from an order, dated 1st June 1962, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Moradabad, in a suit for declaration for setting aside a partition decree directing the plaintiff to pay a court-fees of Rs. 26,757.50 after deducting Rs. 200 already paid by him.
(2.)THE facts, briefly stated, are that Lalit Porwal, a minor brought the suit for declaration through a next friend against the members of his family including his mother also. The declaration sought is that the compromise decree passed in civil suit No. 27 of 1960 of the Court of the Civil Judge, Moradabad, is void, inoperative and bas been obtained fraudulently. The plaintiff paid a court-fee of Rs. 200 only although he valued the entire property, in which he was claiming only 1/12th share, at Rupees 3,36,000. At first the office reported that the court-fee paid was sufficient and the suit was ordered to be registered on the same day it was filed. However, on the next day the Munsarim on second thought reported that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff was insufficient, that it was payable under S. 7(iv-A) of the Court-fees Act and there was a deficiency of Rs 26,657.50 only. The learned Civil Judge, after having heard both the parties, accepted the Munsarims report. The appeal is directed against that order.
"It is contended on behalf of the appellant that- (a) the plaintiff, being a minor was not properly represented in the earlier suit and, therefore, should not be deemed to be a party to the decree; and (b) in any case the plaintiff could not be required to pay court-fees on more than his share of the value of the property involved in the decree."

Original Suit No. 27 or 1960 or the Court of Civil Judge, Moradabad, had been brought by the mother of the plaintiff, both in her name as well as in the name of the plaintiff. She acted as the next friend of the plaintiff. A compromise was arrived at in that suit. It is clear from the averments made in Para. 14 of the plaint that although no application was moved on behalf of the plaintiffs next friend to grant permission for arriving at a compromise on behalf of the minor plaintiff the Court passed a routine order giving such permission. It is evident that the compromise decree was passed after that permission had been granted.

(3.)IT is in these circumstances that the question arises whether the plaintiff, who was a minor, could be considered to be a party to the decree within the meaning of S. 7(iv-A) of the Court-fees Act. The plaintiffs mother could have brought a suit acting as the next friend of her minor son when she thought that the interest of her son would be best safeguarded by getting partition effected. It could not therefore, be contended that the suit filed in the name of the minor plaintiff by his mother acting as the next friend was not properly instituted. The plaintiff was thus a party to the suit in which the decree was passed.