ORDER :- This is a revision petition at the instance of the defendant in O. S. No. 297 of 1958 against an order directing payment of court-fee in regard to a claim for improvements made in the following circumstances. The respondent filed a suit for a declaration of its title to the suit property, for possession and recovery of mesne profits. The petitioner, in addition to contesting the title of the respondent, pleaded that he had effected improvements to the property to an extent of Rs. 1500/- and before a decree for possession could be passed, he should be compensated to the extent of that amount. The lower court has held that the petitioner should pay court-fee on that amount. It is plain that the claim of the defendant to be paid the cost of the improvement as a condition of the decree for possession is neither it claim for set-off nor one by way of counter claim. Mr. Ramanujam, who appeared for the Government Pleader, sought to contend that the claim would come within the term counter claim in Sec. 8 of the Court-fees Act. Reliance was placed on the decision in Alamelu Ammal v. Thayarammal, 73 Mad LW 665 : (AIR 1961 Mad 355). That was a case where a mortgagor filed a