Order.- These petitions are directed against the order of the District Judge of Tirunelveli, directing that the nine claimants to the Sivagiri estate should equally contribute to the total Court-fee of Rs. 6,000 payable on the plaint in O.S. No. 3 of 1960. The Sivagiri estate was an impartible estate in the Tirunelveli District. The last Zamindar, Chinnathambiar, applied to the Court of Wards to take over the management of the Estate, as it was considerably indebted. The Court of Wards took management of the Estate. The Zamindari itself was abolished under the Abolition Act, and the Zamindari vested in the Government on 3rd January, 1951 under section 3 of the Abolition Act. Besides the compensation paid for the zamindari there were other properties, which belonged to the late Zamindar who died on 16th August, 1955. The Court of Wards, which was in possession of the estate, filed O.S. No. 26 of 1956 in the Sub-Court, Tirunelveli, which was later transferred to the District Court and registered as O.S. No. 3 of 1960 for the following relief: “It is therefore prayed that this Court be pleased (a) to take over possession of the Schedule properties from the plaintiff and direct payment of the Court-fee and other cost incurred by the plaintiff in the first instance, (b) to adjudicate the claims of the defendants in respect of the suit and to pass a decree for possession accordingly, and (c) to grant such other and further relief as may seem fit and proper to this Court”. The suit is purported to be filed under section 28, Civil Procedure Code, as an inter-pleader suit, and a Court-fee of Rs. 200 was paid under section 50 of the Madras Court-fees Act (XIV of 1955). On a Check-slip issued by the Court-fee Examiner, the learned District Judge held that the nine sharers should equally contribute to the total Court-fee of Rs. 6,000 payable on the plaint. This the learned District Judge did, under section 48 of the Court-fees Act. Section 48 (2) states that, where issues are framed between the claimants, the total fee payable on the basis of the market value of the property which formed the subject-matter of the suit would be ascertained, and, after giving due credit for the initial payment made, the balance shall be divided in equal shares between the claimants who claim the property adversely to each of them. The nine sharers do not claim equal shares in the property. Some of them claim a 15th share, and some others, a larger share. But the learned District Judge has apportioned the Court-fee payable equally amongst them. It is this order that is sought to be revised in these petitions. It will be apparent from a reading of the plaint that the suit, though styled as an inter-pleader suit, is not, in substance one. The prayer which I have extracted above shows that the Court has to take charge of the property and ascertain the shares and distribute the same in accordance with the shares of various claimants. That would be an administration suit, and not a mere inter-pleader suit. Mr. Ramanujam, who appears for the Government Pleader, has nothing to say against this view. If so much is conceded, namely, that the suit is an administration suit, the proper section of the Court-fees Act to apply will be section 39. The stage at which Court-fee has got to be levied will be after the shares are ascertained and before the decree is passed. That stage has not yet been reached. Under the circumstances, the order of the lower Court calling upon the various claimants to pay the Court-fee now on the footing that the suit was an inter-pleader suit, cannot be sustained, and it is set aside. In this view, it is unnecessary to determine whether or not the value adopted by the lower Court in assessing the Court-fee or in apportioning the same equally is right. There will be no order as to costs. R.M. -------------- Petition allowed.