Somayya, J.

1. The sole question in this revision petition is whether the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs on their plaint is correct. The plaintiffs are the junior members of a putravakasam tavazhi. The main allegations in the plaint are that the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 12 were members of a putravakasam tavazhi that the second defendant was the karnavathi and manager of the putravakasam tavazhi and the third defendant, though the eldest son of the second defendant had never the karnavasthanam nor the right of management. The management of the properties was as specified in the gift deed granted by one K. Kuttiammo Haji the husband of the second defendant and was in the second defendant and not in the third who it is said lives in his wifes, house. Then reference is made to a decree in S.C.S. No. 88 of 1934 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court of Tellicherry where defendants 2 to 4. in the present action were alone impleaded and it is stated that the present third defendant was impleaded therein as the karnavan of the putravakasam tavazhi, that the decree was passed with the third defendant as the karnavan and that as the third defendant was never the karnavan