Bachawat, J. - (1.) This reference arises out of a suit instituted by Amar Nath since deceased against 9 defendants claiming declaration of the plaintiff's right to an one-third share in the suit properties and partition and separate possession of his share on the ground (a) that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Lokenath and Chandra Nath were co-owners of the properties, (b) that their brother Tarak Nath obtained schedule ka properties under a deed of settlement executed by Raja Pearymohon, (c) that on a true construction of the deed of settlement in the event of Tarak dying sonless, the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 would become entitled to the schedule ka properties in equal shares subject to the rights given to Tarak's widow, (d) that the schedule kha properties were in reality transformations of some of the other properties obtained by Tarak under the deed of settlement, (e) that Tarak Nath died sonless leaving behind him his widow defendant No. 3 Siba Rani and his daughters, defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6, Amiyabala, Rekha and Anima, (f) that on the death of Tarak Nath the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 became entitled to the schedule ka and kha properties in equal shares, (g) that defendant No. 7, Golamrnustafa was an izardar of Tarak Nath and defendant No. 8, Harish Chandra had a settlement from Tarak and defendant No. 9 Amulya Charan was a care-taker of the suit properties, (h) that Tarak Nath had no right to dispose of the suit properties by his will, if any, and (i) that a deed of release executed by the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 in favour of Tarak Nath was void and inoperative. The plaint was later amended by adding as party defendant No. 10, Roy Sukhendra administrator pendente lite to the estate of Tarak Nath. On the death of Amar Nath his heirs were substituted as plaintiffs. The trial court held that the suit was chargeable with the fixed court-fee of Rs. 15/-. The defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 moved this Court in revision for setting aside this order. A question of law arising out of the revision case has been referred to this Bench under Chapter II Rule 1 Proviso (ii) of the Appellate Side Rules.
(2.) Mr. Mitter contended that the defendant has no right to move this Court in revision on a matter concerning court-fees. We cannot decide this point as the whole case has not been referred to us. Mr. Mitter will be at liberty to urge this point before the Division Bench.
(3.) The question referred to this Bench is as follows : "Whether a suit, which otherwise satisfies the requirement of Clause (VA) of Schedule II, Article 17 of the Court Fees Act, would go out of the purview of that Clause, if the plaintiff joins as a defendant a stranger, that is, a person who is not a co-sharer or co-owner, for enforcing, in his presence, his (the plaintiff's) right to the share, claimed by him in the suit properties, and if the determination of the question that the suit properties are joint properties, as claimed by the plaintiff, and of the plaintiff's title to the same as a co-sharer, as aforesaid, depends upon the construction or avoidance -- though not necessarily, cancellation, of some document or transaction in respect of the suit properties or any of them, in which the said stranger is or claims to be interested. If so, how is such a suit to be valued and stamped?";