JUDGMENT

Ashworth, J. - This is a reference by the Taxing Officer for a decision as to the proper Court-fee to be paid in a suit out of which has arisen First Appeal No. 322 of 1925. According to the plaint the plaintiff and his nephew were co-parceners in respect of certain property. On the 15th of September, 1913, the nephew, Roshan Lal, executed a usufructuary mortgage in favour of defendant No. 1. On the death of Roshan Lal, some eight or nine months later the mortgagee brought a suit for foreclosure against Musammat Kausila, widow of Roshan Lal and got a decree, The plaintiff asks for a declaration that the mortgage deed was void and ineffectual as Roshan Lal had no right to transfer the family property. There is no statement in the plaint whether Roshan Lal was the manager or not of the family. The second relief claimed was possession of the property.

2. Now in a suit for possession it is not necessary for the plaintiff to sue for a declaration as to his title. At any rate in a suit of this nature for possession it is not necessary for him to do so. The plaintiff's Counsel consequently maintains that the Court-fee should be valued merely as a suit for possession. In support of