Varadachariar, J.

1. This second appeal raises a question as to the court-fee payable on the plaint. There is no doubt room for some suspicion that the plaint has been so drafted as to avoid inconvenient facts and make it appear that it is not necessary to pay a higher court-fee than the plaintiff paid in the first instance. But I do not think that even such a suspicion will justify the departure from the well established principle that for purposes of the calculation of court fee, the Court must take the allegations in the plaint to be prima facie correct.

2. On the pleadings in the case, I think a distinction ought to have been drawn between the properties which have admittedly been alienated by the 1st defendant and properties which are in his possession in his own right. So far as the former set of properties id concerned, the plaintiff cannot claim to treat the alienees possession as the possession of a co-tenant and for this purpose it can make no distinction even if physical possession of such properties happens to be with the 1st defendant himself as the result of any arrangement between the 1st defendant and the alienees. But as regards the properties which have not