Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the finding recorded by the Subordinate Judge of Irinjalakuda, on the first issue in O.S. No. 54 of 1956. The contesting defendants had raised a point that the plaint was not properly valued and that the court fee paid was not sufficient. The issue was "Is the valuation of the suit and the court fee paid not correct". The learned judge over-ruled the defence contention and the 1st defendant has therefore preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 2. The suit was filed by the President and Secretary of the Committee of Management of Cranganore Shrikrishnaswamy Devaswom against the defendants who are members of the Committee of S.K.G. S. B. Samooham. The plaintiffs' case is that certain endowments for the performance of ceremonies in the temple of the Devaswom have become vested in the Samooham as trustee. According to the plaintiffs, all the assets of the Samooham belong to the Devaswom. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants are guilty of several acts of misfeasance and malfeasance in respect of the administration of the trust and they have even repudiated the title of the Devaswom. The plaintiffs prayed for two reliefs, of which the first was for a declaration that all the properties standing in the name of the Samooham belong to the Devaswom and that the defendants are only trustees of the Devaswom and also for recovery of possession of such properties from the defendants. The other relief which was claimed in the alternative was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,492-2-11 from the defendants. The first relief was valued at Rs. 3,100 and the second at Rs. 4,492-2-11 and as the two were alternative reliefs, court fee was paid on the higher sum. 3. The position taken by the plaintiffs in the court below was that the first relief fell under S.3 Clause.4 (f) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act which provides for suits for declaratory decrees or orders where consequential relief is prayed for. In the case of suits falling under this provision, court fee is payable on the amount at which the plaintiff values the relief. In the case of suits falling under this provision, court fee is payable on the amount at which the plaintiff values the relief. According to the defendants the prayer for recovery of property is not a mere consequential relief but a substantial relief on which court fee is payable on the value of the property under S.3 (5) (a) of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act. As stated earlier the trial court held that the suit was correctly valued under S.3 (4) (f) and that the court fee paid was sufficient. 4. Shri. T. S. Venkiteswara Iyer, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents, has raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition is incompetent. It is contended that under S.9 of the Travancore-Cochin Court Fees Act the decision of the trial court on this point is final, as no question of dismissal of the suit arises in view of the finding that the suit is properly valued and proper court fees paid. According to the respondents the first relief really falls under Clause (2) of Article $ of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act. It is also contended that the Subordinate Judge's Court is one of unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction so far as original suits are concerned and that even if the finding recorded by the court below is erroneous, the court will not be acting in excess of jurisdiction so as to attract the revisional jurisdiction of this court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. So far as the first two points are concerned, it may be mentioned that the question of finality of decisions regarding valuation of suits as stated in S.12 of the Indian Court Fees Act which corresponds to S.9 of the Travancore-Cochin Act has been explained by the Supreme Court in Nemichand and another v, Edward Mills Company Limited and another (AIR 1953 S. C. 28). It is held that the expression "Valuation" in S.12 does not include within its ambit the question as to the particular category within which the case falls. So far as this case is concerned the trial court has held that the suit falls under Clause.4 of S.3 and not Clause.5. The finality contemplated under S.9 cannot possibly attach to a decision on this point. So far as this case is concerned the trial court has held that the suit falls under Clause.4 of S.3 and not Clause.5. The finality contemplated under S.9 cannot possibly attach to a decision on this point. Coming to the second question, the learned judge observed that this was a suit between rival trustees of an idol and it is on this basis that the respondents contend that the suit falls under Clause.8 (2) of ScheduleII. I am unable to accept this position. The suit is by the Devaswom against the Committee of management of another institution which is said to be functioning as trustee of the former. It is asserted in the plaint that the Devaswom is the beneficiary of a Trust of which the Samooham is the trustee. The assumption made by the learned judge that the suit is one between rival trustees is therefore unsustainable. I am of opinion that the suit does not fall under Clause.8(2) of Schedule II. 6. The question remains under which section of the Court Fees Act the suit should be valued for levying court fees. Though I find it difficult to accept the view taken by the court below that it falls under Clause.4 (f) of S.3, I do not consider it proper to express any opinion on the matter at this stage as the revision petition must in my opinion fail on another ground. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge's Court is unlimited, so far as original suits are concerned and the trial court has now held that the court fee paid is sufficient. Even if the valuation of the suit for purposes of court fee is incorrect and a higher sum is payable as court fees, the Subordinate Judge would still have jurisdiction to try the suit. It is therefore clear that in trying the suit the court will not be acting in excess of its jurisdiction. As pointed out in the decision in Mathew Mathews Kathanar v. Kuriakose Easus Kathanar (I.L.R.1953 T.C. 1170 F.B.: 1955 K.L. T.17 an erroneous decision on the question of court fees does not mean that "the decision is revisable under S.115 Civil Procedure Code. As pointed out in the decision in Mathew Mathews Kathanar v. Kuriakose Easus Kathanar (I.L.R.1953 T.C. 1170 F.B.: 1955 K.L. T.17 an erroneous decision on the question of court fees does not mean that "the decision is revisable under S.115 Civil Procedure Code. It is laid down in the above case that in such a case the court will not be assuming a jurisdiction not vested in it, notwithstanding the incorrect valuation and insufficiency of court fee paid and that the court would not be acting illegally or with material irregularity in trying the suit. -This, if I may say so with respect, is the proper view to be adopted in a case like this and I do not therefore feel called upon to decide at this stage whether the finding of the court below requires modification. If the court fee paid is insufficient it is open for the appellate court if and when it becomes properly seised of the case to decide the question, as provided by the proviso to S.9. The finding does not therefore require interference at this stage. 7. n view of the conclusion reached above the Civil Revision Petition must be and is dismissed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Dismissed.