Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question involved in this Revision Petition is one of court-fee and for the disposal of the same it is necessary to look into the allegations in the plaint and the substance of the relief claimed. Plaintiff 1 is a divided brother of one Vedala Raghavacharyulu, the husband of defendant 2. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the sons of plaintiff 1. Raghavacharyulu died in or about January 1929, leaving him surviving his widow, and by his last will and testament conferred certain rights in his estate on the widow and after her lifetime on the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiffs is that she has only a life-interest and that they have a vested remainder therein, The plaintiffs allege that the testator directed that the debts left by him should be discharged by his widow in a certain manner but she failed to do so, that she in collusion with defendant 1 executed certain promissory notes in his name, some of them purporting to be renewals of debts of her husband, that on the footing of the said promissory notes defendant 1 instituted O.S. No. 230 of 1934 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Masulipatam, against defendant 2, that the latter allowed an ex parte