Court held payment of Court fee unsustainable.

These three matters arise out of the same suit O.S.No.1101 of 1987. For the purpose of in the suit.

2. C.R.P.No.2338 of 1994 is against an order dated 212. 1993 made by the trial Court on the preliminary issue of payment of Court-foe paid in the suit. Defendants 1 to 3 are the petitioners therein. The plaintiff, the 7th and 9th defendants are the respondents. The 9th defendant was later given up in the revision petition. C.R.P.No.2339 of 1994 is against an order of the same date, made in I.A.No.452 of 1993 permiting the plaintiff to amend the plaint by subsiting ‘Sec.40’ of the Court-fees Act in paragraph 21 of ttat plaint. C.M.A.No. 844 of 1994 is against an order made on the same date in I A.No. 1358 of 19S7 granting injunction restraining the appellant from or encumbering the suit property in any matter till the disposal of suit.

3. The plaint was originally filed by the plaintiff and his brother Shanmugavelayutham, who got transposed later as the 10th defendant. The plaintiff is the son of the 7th defendant, who was the second wife of one Rangasamy, who died ia 1967. The 8th defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. The 10th defendant is the sot of the first wife of the said Rangaswamy. Defendants 1 and 4 are the brothers of the said Rangaswasny. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant, while the third defendant is their sen. The 5th defendant is the wife of the fourth defendant and the 6th defendant is their son. The allegations in die plaint are shortly as fellows: The father of the plaintiff, the first defendant and the fourth defendant constituted a Hindu joint family and owned ancestral properties. In spite of a deed of partition, they continued to live jointly and carried on business as such. They ventured into several businesses like running a rice mill, match factory, powerlooms etc. They were also carrying on business in timber and had taken coup contracts. Enormous investments were made and several immovable properties were acquired in various places out of the family income and profits derived from the business. They are set out in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint as items 1 and 2. In all the business activities and acquisition of properties, the plaintiffs father played a prominent part. He was not only a successful businessman but also an active participant in public life. He was killed in a motor accident on 25. 1967, when he was-aged about 44. His widow, the 7th defendant, was not much educated. The plaintiff was aged about 19 at that time undergoing training at Eftrti^ntil defence Academy at Kadakavasala at Poona. The 10th defendant was aged only 11, studying in school. All the properties, assets and business came into the hands of the first defendant. The heirs of Rangaswamy left themselves and their properties unde’r the control and protection of the first defendant in utmost faith, reposing trust and confidence in him. He was looked upon as their protector and guardian and they obeyed his instructions and directions without any question ordemur. Even the insurance amount of Rs. 1,00,000 received on the demise of Rangaswamy was handed over to the first defendant and it was ploughed into the assets and business of the family. That amount was mainly responsible for the growth and development of the business and properties. In 1968 the plaintiff took up an L.I.C. Policy for Rs.25,000 designating the first defendant as his nominee. The 7th defendant was taken as a partner in the business in the place of her husband. In 1969 a land was purchased and a factory was put up wherein a sizing unit with the name of Sri Ranga Vilas Warping and Sizing Factory is functioning. Properties were acquired in 1972, 1975,1976 and 1978 with the joint income and for the benefit of the family. All the properties were under the dominant control of the first defendant. The plaintiff and the 10th defendant were living/under the shelter of the first defendant. They were gullible youngsters obediently acting to th