ORDER : The question in this petition is about the court fee payable in a suit by the trustees of a temple. 2. The case in the plaint is as follows:- There are four schedules of properties appended to the plaint. A schedule contains the immovable and D schedule the movable properties that are in the possession of the temple. It is stated that the 1st defendant, having secured a deed of management of the temple from defendants 3 and 4 without the concurrence or consent of the other trustees, is holding the properties mentioned in the A and D schedules. The 1st defendant had no legal authority to manage the temple, and as such he should be removed from such management; and the plaintiff must be restored to his trusteeship of the temple and to the possession of the assets in the plaint A and D schedules. The B schedule properties belong to the temple. But over the same the 1st defendant has secured a mortgage unauthorisedly from defendants 3 and 4 who are legally incompetent to execute the same and as such that mortgage has to be set aside in this suit. Over the C schedule properties also defendants 3 and 4 had executed an unauthorised mortgage in favour of the 1st defendant; but a separate suit has been instituted in respect of the same by the plaintiff and as such he is not seeking any relief in respect of the C schedule properties in this suit. In the circumstances the plaintiff has paid court fee of Rs. 15/- in respect of the removal of the 1st defendant from management of temple and restoration of its management to himself, under the fixed scale of court fees in Schedule II, Art. VIII(2). With regard to the prayer in respect of the B schedule properties he has paid court fee on the market-value thereof. But the court below has ordered that the court fee thus remitted is insufficient and that the plaintiff should pay additional court fee on the market-value of the properties mentioned in A and D schedules appended to the plaint. It is from that order that this C.R.P. has been filed by the plaintiff. But the court below has ordered that the court fee thus remitted is insufficient and that the plaintiff should pay additional court fee on the market-value of the properties mentioned in A and D schedules appended to the plaint. It is from that order that this C.R.P. has been filed by the plaintiff. The order also directs the plaintiff to state an amount at which he values his prayer for settlement of accounts and to pay court fee thereon; but that is not objected to before me. 3. The prayer for removal of the 1st defendant from the management of the temple, the 1st defendant being only an agent of some of the misbehaving trustees thereof, has to be regarded as equivalent to a prayer for removal of the trustees themselves who are his principals. The prayer for recovery of possession of the trust (Devaswom) properties from him cannot be regarded as an independent relief claimed in the suit; it is merely ancillary to the removal of the 1st defendant from management of the temple. "For the rightful trustee to get into possession, the removal of the wrongful one is enough as on that event happening, possession perforce goes to him. A prayer for possession of property added to one for removal of the trustee would and has to be regarded as a surplusage". (Mathews Kathanar v. Easus Kathanar - (1955 KLT. 17 at 32 & 45.) It follows therefore that in respect of the prayers for removal of a trustee and for recovery of the properties in his possession the plaintiff has only to pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 15/- under Schedule II, Article VIII (2) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act, 1125. That he had done. The prayer for recovery of the A and D schedules of properties, not being an independent relief in the plaint, does not require payment of any separate court fee. The order of the court below so far as it directs the plaintiff to pay ad valorem fee on the market-value of the A and D schedules of properties is therefore incorrect and is hereby set aside. The order is upheld in other respects. 4. It is reported to me that for non-compliance with the order under revision the suit had been dismissed by the court below. As per the ruling of this Court in Chappila v. Chemmaran (1960 KLT. The order is upheld in other respects. 4. It is reported to me that for non-compliance with the order under revision the suit had been dismissed by the court below. As per the ruling of this Court in Chappila v. Chemmaran (1960 KLT. 1361) the result of allowing this CRP. and setting aside the order of the court below, in substance 'will be to undo the consequences that followed the non-compliance with the impugned order and thereby to restore the suit to file. The Court below will therefore take the suit to its file and grant the plaintiff time to pay the additional court fee, if any, payable in accordance with this order. 5. The C.R.P. is allowed as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs in this C.R.P. Allowed.