( 1 ) THIS case had been referred for opinion to this Full Bench on the assumption that there appears to be a conflict of views between the Special Bench case of baldeo Singh v. Gopal Singh, 1967 MPLJ 242 = (AIR 1967 Madh Pra 221) (SB) on the one hand and the other earlier Division Bench cases, namely, Dattaji parashramji Patil v. Mst. Bhagirathi, ILR (1939) Nag 373 = (AIR 1938 Nag 183), ratansingh v. Raghuraisingh, ILR (1945) Nag 975 = (AIR 1946 Nag 30), Dipchand balchand v. State of M. P. , 1957 MPLJ 46, Badrilal Bholaram v. State of M. P. 1963 mplj 717 = (AIR 1964 Madh Pra 9) and Komalata Dutta v. Ishwar Industries Ltd. , 1964 MPLJ 553 = (AIR 1966 Madh Pra 169 ). At the outset we may observe that there is no such conflict of views and the Special Bench case of 1967 MPLJ 242 = (AIR 1967 Madh Pra 221) (SB) (supra) is distinguishable on facts. However, we propose to answer the question of court-fees that arises for consideration in the present case.

( 2 ) THE Division Bench has not framed any question on which our opinion is sought. We would frame the question later. The necessary facts in order to appreciate the question are as follows: One Jethmal, who owned the suit pro