Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff has filed this revision petition against the order of the lower court directing him to pay court fees on the market value of the property involved in this case. The 1st defendant is the plaintiffs father and the 2nd defendant is a stranger. The plaint property is alleged to belong to the plaintiff under a gift deed from his paternal uncle. This gift deed was in 1105 and at that time the plaintiff was a minor. It was stated that his father, the 1st defendant was looking after the property and collecting the income. It was also alleged in the plaint that as the plaintiff had to stay away from Shencotta for his education he had arranged with his father to collect the yield from the properties and to dispose of it as per his directions. On the ground that the 1st defendant was neither collecting the income properly, nor fully remitting to the plaintiff whatever amount that had been collected, the plaintiff wanted to terminate this arrangement and to collect the income and to conserve the yield from the properties. It was alleged, that in this, the plaintiff was obstructed by the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant was also impleaded in the case as he had joined hands with the 1st defendant in obstructing the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is stated to be a man of some influence in the locality. The suit was therefore for an injunction to restrain defendants 1 and 2 from obstructing the plaintiff in taking the yield of the plaint property. An alternative relief was also claimed that in case the defendants resisted or obstructed, the recovery of the plaint property may be ordered with future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per annum from defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff valued the suit for purpose of court fees under clause viii (8) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, and for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 4,000/-. 2. The learned judge in whose court this case was pending had first passed an order that a fixed fee of Rs. 10/- was sufficient. But the question of court fees was again taken up for consideration, by his successor-in-office, who passed the present order that the plaintiff has to pay the court fees on the market value of the property. The learned judge in whose court this case was pending had first passed an order that a fixed fee of Rs. 10/- was sufficient. But the question of court fees was again taken up for consideration, by his successor-in-office, who passed the present order that the plaintiff has to pay the court fees on the market value of the property. This petition is filed to revise that order. 3. It was first contended, that as the question relating to court fees had been finally decided by a court of competent jurisdiction that order was conclusive as between the parties and not liable to be revised. Under section 9 of the Court Fees Act, corresponding to section 12 of the Indian Act, every question relating to valuation, for the purpose of determining the amount of any fee chargeable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal, shall be decided by the Court in which such plaint or memorandum, as the case may be, is filed, and such decision shall be final as between the parties to the suit. It is this final character of the order that is relied on by the petitioner to show that any consideration of the question is unwarranted. The first order of the court was that for the purpose of court fee the suit has to be valued under clause VIII (8) of the second Schedule of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act I of 1125 and that Section 3 of the Act had no application. The Court therefore first decided under which category the suit would fall and then determined the amount of court fees required. In such cases, the general consensus of judicial opinion is that every question relating to the valuation referred only to the actual assessment or appraisement of the value of the suit or appeal, apart from the question as to whether the court fee is to depend on the value of the suit or appeal or as to the property according to which such value is to be assessed. It is, therefore, clear that the question under what category a suit or appeal falls for purpose of court fees is not within the purview of this section. The decisions reported in A.I.R. 1942 Madras 502, A.I.R. 1931 Bombay 234, A.I.R. 1924 Calcutta 731, A.I.R. 1919 Lah., 323, A.I.R. 1941 Cal. 518, and A.I.R. 1938 Nag. 481 will support this view. 4. The decisions reported in A.I.R. 1942 Madras 502, A.I.R. 1931 Bombay 234, A.I.R. 1924 Calcutta 731, A.I.R. 1919 Lah., 323, A.I.R. 1941 Cal. 518, and A.I.R. 1938 Nag. 481 will support this view. 4. It follows therefore that the court was competent to reconsider the matter when there was an omission on the part of the court to consider the provision of law when the original order was passed and such omission appeared on the face of the order. The decision in Hari Sanker v. Anoth Nath A. I. R. 1949 F. C. 106 would support this view. The court was therefore quite competent to pass the second order referred to above. Apart from this whenever the suit comes before court of Appeal, reference or revision, is open for that court to determine the court fees required and to direct the party to pay additional sums if necessary, if the first assessment of court fee was wrongly or improperly made to the detriment of the revenue. The matter is now before this court and so by virtue of the proviso in section 9, the proper court fee to be paid, can in any event, be considered and determined by this court. 5. The question now considered by the lower court was whether in suit for possession of land, building or garden which are not based on contract, the suit falls under section 3 (5) (a), or under clause 8 of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act I of 1125. For suits falling under section 3 (5) (a) of the Court Fees Act, Court fees has to be paid on the subject matter of the appeal. But if the recovery of possession is not based on a contract, there is a particular section of the Court Fees Act that could be made applicable to that and so the case will not fall under schedule II. In the present case it is seen that the plaintiff has in the alternative claimed relief for recovery of possession from defendants 1 and 2. Even if the 1st defendant is taken to be a care-taker under an arrangement between the plaintiff and himself, there is nothing to indicate that the 2nd defendant was interested in any way in that contract or that he has any thing to do with the plaintiff so far as the plaint property was concerned. Even if the 1st defendant is taken to be a care-taker under an arrangement between the plaintiff and himself, there is nothing to indicate that the 2nd defendant was interested in any way in that contract or that he has any thing to do with the plaintiff so far as the plaint property was concerned. This suit therefore should be taken to be one which is not based on a contract, and being so, he has to pay the court fees on the market value of the property as held by the lower court. 6. The order sought to be revised is correct and this revision petition is dismissed with costs. Dismissed.