In this Civil Revision Petition, on behalf of the petitioners, who are defendants 31 and 32, Mr. S. Subramania Iyer, learned counsel challenges the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam in I.A. 471 of 1965 in O. S.65/56 on the file of that court.

2. From the statement of facts in the Civil Revision Petition, it is seen that the 1st respondent to this revision petition, originally instituted the suit O. S.65 of 1956 for partition of the suit properties, as appurtenant to the Sthanam of the 1st defendant; and that claim was made on the basis of the provisions of the Madras Marumakkathayam (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1955 (Madras Act XXXII of 1955). It is also seen that in that suit, the plaintiff wanted a partition of the properties, after setting aside several alienations stated to have been effected by the 1st defendant, in favour of some of the parties to the suit, including the present revision petitioners. The petitioners contested the claim made by the plaintiff, as also the reliefs that he wanted to obtain in the suit.

3. While matters stood thus, the Sthani, who was the 1st defendant, died in January 1960, and in May 1960 the Supreme Court declared Madras Act XXXII of 1955 as unconstitutional & ultra vires. Therefore the plaintiff had necessarily to make certain amendments to the original plaint; and therefore the suit appears to have been amended, claiming partition under sub-section (3) of S.7 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Central Act XXX of 1956). No doubt there appears to have been a challenge directed as against the order of the trial court, allowing the plaintiff to amend his plaint. But that order was confirmed by this Court on 9 1 63. It is also seen that certain proceedings were taken to challenge the constitutional validity of the material provisions contained in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and that attempt also failed. Ultimately it is seen that I.A. No. 163 of 1960 was filed by the 2nd defendant, to direct the plaintiff to delete the Elaya Sthanam properties, namely those properties enumerated in Schedules C and D. There was a direction given by the trial court on the said application to that effect; but that direction was not carried into effect by the plaintiff. Therefore, there was an application filed, namely I.A. 903 of 1963, to dismiss the suit for failure of the plaintiff to comply with the directions given by the court. The plaintiff, in turn, appears to have filed I.A. 1003/1963 to excuse the delay in carrying out the amendment; and that application was allowed on 17-7-1963. Ultimately after all these skirmishes, the plaint itself was amended on 9-6-1965, and the plaint, as it now stands, is for partition, on the basis of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

4. The contesting defendants appear to have raised certain objections that proper court fee has not been paid by the plaintiff. Therefore the court passed an order on 9-12-1964 directing the plaintiff to pay additional court fee. But the plaintiff filed I.A. 27 of 1964 to review the order dated 9-12-1964. Ultimately, the court, after reviewing the order passed earlier passed a fresh order on 19-2-1965, directing the plaintiff to pay the court fee within 10 days, i.e., on or before 2-3-1965. It may also be stated that the Sthani, 1st defendant, himself died; and that was why the suit had to be amended, basing the claim for partition on the basis of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

5. On 2-3-1965, the original plaintiff, namely the 1st respondent herein, did not pay the necessary court fee. In consequence two applications were filed by the 18th defendant in the suit, namely the 18th respondent herein, on 2-3-1965, being (a) I.A. No. 447/65 to transpose him as plaintiff and to transpose the original plaintiff to the array of defendants, and (b) I.A. 448/65 to permit the 18th defendant, who was to be transposed as plaintiff, to pay the court fee in accordance with the order of the court dated 19-2-1965. The petitioners, in tur