Order. — The plaintiff is the petitioner herein. He filed a representative suit for a declaration that the defendant Municipality of Masulipatam had no jurisdiction over French Loge in which he resides, for the reason that the order passed by the State Government vesting French Loge in the Masulipatam Municipality was void in that it did not follow the mandatory provisions of section 4 of the District Municipalities Act. According to the plaint in the absence of a valid order vesting French Loge in the Municipality, it had no right to collect taxes from the residents of French Loge. French Loge belonged to the French Government and it was handed over to the Government of. India after the attainment of independence on the 6th day of October, 1947. This enabled the Provincial Government to vest this part of the erstwhile French Possession in Masulipatam Municipality. But before they could do so, certain procedure had to be followed as prescribed in section 4 of the District Municipalities Act. This suit is filed by the plaintiff in the Subordinate Judge’s Court of Masulipatam on behalf of the residents of French Loge challenging the validity of the vesting order and the right of the Municipality to collect taxes from him and other persons of French Loge. The plaintiff valued the suit under Article 17-B of the Second Schedule to the Court-Fees Act and paid a court-fee of Rs. 100. On an objection taken by the office, the Subordinate Judge directed the plaintiff to pay an additional court-fee of Rs. 400 being of the opinion that the case was governed by Article 17-A (i) of the Second Schedule. The question for consideration is whether it is Article 17-A (i) or 17-B that governs this case. Article 17-B as amended in Madras, prescribes a court-fee of Rs. 100 for a plaint filed in a District Court or Subordinate Judge’s Court, where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act. This article would cover this case if it is found that it is not possible to assess the money value of the subject-matter of the suit. What is recited in the plaint is that the Municipality had no right to collect taxes from the residents of French Loge. This article would cover this case if it is found that it is not possible to assess the money value of the subject-matter of the suit. What is recited in the plaint is that the Municipality had no right to collect taxes from the residents of French Loge. There is no dispute with regard to the title to any of the properties situated in the locality, as erroneously assumed by tbe lower Court. The Municipality has not put forward any claim to any of the properties therein. They only wanted to collect some taxes from the residents of French Loge in respect of the properties owned by them in that locality. Therefore, the market value of all the properties in French Loge has absolutely no bearing on the question of the court-fee payable on the plaint. It is only in cases where there is any dispute as to the right or title to any property that Article 17-A(i) could be invoked and can have no application in a case like this where only the right of the Municipality to exercise jurisdiction over this locality is questioned. The dispute in the suit does not involve any title to the property nor interference with possession and enjoyment thereof, the only question, as already stated, being whether the Municipal Council could exercise jurisdiction over this area and collect property-tax from the people living there and this right is incapable of being valued in terms of money. A similar question arose in the High Court of Madras in Venkateswara Rao v. Municipal Council, Masulipatam1. There the suit was filed against this very Municipality for a declaration that the resolution passed by it and all that was done in pursuance thereof were illegal, ultra vires and void. There was also a prayer for injunction restraining the Municipal Council from acting any further in pursuance of that resolution. It was valued under Article 17-B of the Court Fees Act and a fined court-fee of Rs. 100 was paid. The Subordinate Judge held that the court-fee should be assessed under Article. 17-A(i) of Schedule II. This order was revised by Rajamannar, Chief Justice, who took the view that, that case was governed by Article 17-B. The facts are ad idem with the present case. There is another decision of the same learned Chief Justice in Thirugnana Sambanda Pandhara Sannadhigal v. The State of Madras2. 17-A(i) of Schedule II. This order was revised by Rajamannar, Chief Justice, who took the view that, that case was governed by Article 17-B. The facts are ad idem with the present case. There is another decision of the same learned Chief Justice in Thirugnana Sambanda Pandhara Sannadhigal v. The State of Madras2. This embodies the same principle. In the second case the declaration sought was that a particular village was not an estate within the meaning of the Estates Land Act and that Madras Act XXX of. 1947 was not applicable to that village. The learned Judge expressed the opinion that that case also fell under Article 17-B. The view taken by Justice Krishnaswamy Nayudu in Marimuthu Nadar v. Tuticorin Municipality3 accords with these two rulings. I express my respectful agreement with the principle adumbrated in these three cases and hold that the suit was rightly valued under Article 17-B and court-fee paid is sufficient. It follows that the order of the appellate Court calling upon the appellant to pay additional court-fee is not right and should be set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. D.L.N. ------ Petition allotted.