The defendant has no right to move the High Court in revision against the order adjudging payment of court fee payable on the plaint.

Judgment

SHAH, J. : Smt. Vimla - hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff - filed suit No. 73 of 1956 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, south Kanara, for a decree for possession of lands, buildings, house-sites described in sch. A and movable properties described in sch. B and for mesne profits in respect of properties described in sch. A and for a decree "for possession and management" and for account of the properties described in sch. C and institutions alleged to be the private family religious endowments in sch. D. The plaintiff claimed that on the death of her father Shri Dharmasthala Manjayya Heggade on August 31, 1955, she became entitled to the properties in suit but the defendant wrongfully possessed himself of those properties. The plaintiff valued the properties in schs. C and D under S. 28 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, at Rs. 21,000 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 275. She valued the lands in schedule A for purposes of jurisdiction at 30 times the assessment & separately valued the buildings and paid court-fee on that footing. On June 28, 1956, the subordinate Judge ordered on an objection raised by his office that the amount of Rs. 34,577 paid as court-fee by the plaintiff was adequate. Then followed a course of proceedings for which not many precedents may be found. On September 9, 1950, the defendant filed his written statement raising an objection inter alia to the valuation of the properties in suit and the court-fee exigible on the claim. The Trial Court then raised an issue about the adequacy of the court-fee, paid by the plaintiff. On February 13, 1957, the defendant applied for the appointment of a Commissioner to value the properties. The court dismissed the application and declared that the courtfee paid was adequate. In Revision Petition 272 of 1957 preferred by the defendant to the High Court of Judicature at Bangalore, the order passed by the Subordinate Judge was set aside and it was directed that the trial court do "ascertain the value of the properties for purposes of court-fee in accordance with law after giving full opportunity to the parties and if need be by appointing a Commissioner to ascertain the present market value of the suit Schedule properties and decide the issue afresh on merits. " Pursuant to this direction, a Commissioner was appointed by the Subordinate Judge. The Commissioner submitted his report as to valuation of the properties. Objections were raised by the defendant to that report and a further report was submitted by the Commissioner. On the direction of the Subordinate Judge, a supplemental report was submitted by the Commissioner. After hearing the parties, the Subordinate Judge held that the properties described in sch. D were "extra commercium" and fixed court-fee was exigible in respect of the claim for possession thereof, that properties described in sch. D were "trust properties" and S. 28 of the Madras Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act applied thereto as the dispute related to the right of management between persons claiming to be rival trustees, that the houses built on revenue paying lands had to be valued according to their market value and not at 30 times the land assessment and that the lands in sch. A were worth Rs. 7,74,665 and the house-sites were worth Rs. 27,625. The plaintiff paid the additional court-fee as directed by the court. Against the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff and the defendant applied by separate petitions in revision to the High Court of Mysore. The High Court heard the Advocate-General of the State and substantially confirmed the order passed by the sub-ordinate Judge except as to an institution described as "Nelliyadi Beedu", in respect of which the High Court directed the trial court to determine whether the institution was "extra commercium" after giving an opportunity to both parties to put forth their contentions and to lead evidence in that behalf. Against that order of the High Court,