Nawal Kishore, J.—This is a revision by the defendants against the order of the learned Additional Sub-Judge, calling upon them to pay court-fees on the sum of Rs. 8,650/8/6 claimed on account of repairs and improvements carried out by them in the house in dispute. 2. It appears from the facts alleged on the record that in Smt. 1981, the house in dispute had been mortgaged by the fathers of plaintiffs defendants No. 7 and 10 to Allabanda, father of defendants 14 and 15 for Rs. 3051/-. In Smt. 1998, the house was sold by the plaintiffs mother as guardian for the plaintiffs who were minors at the time and by defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7, and guardian of defendant No. 10 to defendants 1 to 4, the petitioners in this Court, and out of the sale proceeds, the mortgage amount was paid out. In Samvat 2002, plaintiffs Abdul Zabarkhan and Abdul Shakoor Khan filed the present suit for possession of one third share of the house in dispute by cancellation of the sale on the ground that their mother as de facto guardian was not authorized to dispose it of and, therefore, the sale as regards their share was void. They offered to pay to defendant No. 1 to 4, one-third share out of the amount paid by them to the mortgagee. Defendants No. 1 to 4 pleaded that they had spent Rs. 8650/8/6 on repairs and improvements and, therefore, a decree for possession should be passed, if at all, subject to the payment of this amount. It was urged by the plaintiffs that the defendants plea could not be entertained until court-fees was paid on the amount claimed by them on account of repairs and improvements. The learned Additional Sub-Judge came to the conclusion after hearing arguments that it was a counter claim for a specific sum and that, therefore, could not be entertained without payment of court-fees. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the view taken by the learned Sub-Judge that the claim put forward by the defendants was in the nature of a counter-claim was not correct in law. He has cited 1950 All. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the view taken by the learned Sub-Judge that the claim put forward by the defendants was in the nature of a counter-claim was not correct in law. He has cited 1950 All. 201, (1) (Abdul Majid vs. Abdul Rashid and others.) and relied on the observations to the effect that the essence of a counter-claim was that the defendant should have a cause of action against the plaintiff and the counter-claim should be in the nature of a cross action and not merely a defence to the plaintiffs claim. There is a reference in this judgment to certain other authorities where it was held that a counter-claim must be of such a nature that the court could have jurisdiction to entertain it as a separate action. It was conceded in that case by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that it could not be urged that the defendant had a cause of action against the plaintiff or that a separate action could be maintained on the basis thereof. The position in this revision is substantially identical. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents has practically conceded that the defendants could not file a separate suit on the basis of this claim and could put it forward as a defence. I respectfully agree with the observations made in 1950 All. 201 and hold that the claim put forward by the defendants could be advanced only as a defence to the suit and that a separate suit was not competent. In the circumstances, the view taken by the learned Additional Sub-Judge is incorrect and the claim for the recovery of the amount alleged to have been spent by the defendants on repairs and improvements must be entertained without payment of court-fees. The revision succeeds and is hereby accepted and order passed by the learned Additional Sub-Judge set aside. Costs will be costs in the cause.