B REHANNA BASANNA Vs. B ADEPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petn to revise the order of the Dist J, Bellary calling upon the petnrs to pay additional courts-fee.

(2.) The suit was for partition. The pltfs are the sons of deft 1. Deft 2 is an alienee of some of the joint family properties from deft 1 under a sale deed dated 10-7-1943. In respect of this alienation it is alleged in the plaint that the alienee, viz., deft 2 is not in possession of the properties alienated to him & that they continue to be in the possession & enjoyment of the family. It is also alleged that the sale "is not true, genuine, valid or binding on the pltfs share of the properties", that there was no legal necessity for the sale, that the family derived no benefit by the sale, that the transaction

(3.) Mr. Ramanarasu, the learned counsel for the petnrs, referred me to the F. B. decision in 'Ramaswami v. Rangachariar', ILR (1940) Mad 259: (AIR (27) 1940 Mad 113 FB). That was a case in which as many as 19 different transactions were attacked. By virtue of some of those transactions possession of the properties had been given to the alienees. To some of the other transactions the pltf thereon was 'eo nomine' a party. In some other transactions, though the alienation was by the manager of the family the pltf was not 'eo nomine' a party, & it was alleged in the plaint that the property continued to be in the possession of the family. In respect of this third class of cases the Ct held that separate Ct-fee was not payable. The learned Chief Justice who delivered the judgment of the majority of the Bench observed: