Order.- This revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin calling upon the petitioner, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 40 of 1959, to pay an additional Court-fee on the plaint. O.S. No. 40 of 1959 was instituted by the petitioner for a declaration that the suit properties belonged to him and for an injunction restraining the first respondent from proceeding against the properties for the debt payable by respondents 2 and 3 in pursuance of the decree passed in O.S. No. 16 of 1949. The following facts are necessary to appreciate the question involved in the present case. According to the petitioner, the properties belonged to it having been purchased on 17th June, 1945. The second respondent was the Managing Director of the petitioner-mills. While he was acting as such Managing Director, the first respondent obtained a money decree against him personally in O.S. No. 16 of 1949. In execution of the decree in that case the first respondent attached the suit property in E.P. No. 60 of 1955. The second respondent thereupon filed E.A. No. 301 of 1956 under Order 21, rule 58, Civil Procedure Code, claiming that the property belonged to the petitioner-mills of which he was only the Managing Director, and that the first respondent had no right to attach the same in execution of a decree against him personally. The claim was rejected. The second respondent thereupon instituted O.S. No. 3 of 1958 to set aside the claim order. That suit was valued at Rs. 5025 as representing ¼th of the market value of the attached properties and a Court-fee of Rs. 337.25 under section 41 of the Court-Fees Act was paid. It is unnecessary to consider now whether that suit has been properly valued or not. On 10th March, 1959, that suit was taken up for trial and dismissed. It is stated, the suit was dismissed by reason of the collusion between the first and second respondents. O.S. No. 40 of 1959 out of which the Civil Revision Petition arises was thereafter instituted by the succeeding Managing Director representing the mills on the allegation that the decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1958 should be set aside as that was the result of the collusion between the first and second respondents. The suit was valued under section 25 (b) of the Court-Fees Act at Rs. 5,500. A Court-fee of Rs. The suit was valued under section 25 (b) of the Court-Fees Act at Rs. 5,500. A Court-fee of Rs. 412.50 was paid. The valuation was objected to by means of the check slip by the Court-fee Examiner. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the subject-matter of the suit should be considered to be the entire property which was the subject-matter of O.S. No. 3 of 1958 and as that according to the plaintiff in that case was worth Rs. 20,100, the present suit should also bear the same value and a court-fee on that amount should be paid. The learned Subordinate Judge’s view was that the Court-fee was payable under section 40 of the Court-Fees Act. There can be no doubt that section 40 would apply to the present case. But the substantial question that arises for consideration is as to what is the amount of Court-fee payable. Section 40 states: “In a suit for cancellation of a decree for money or other property having a money value............fee shall be computed on the value of the subject-matter of the suit and such value shall be deemed to be if the whole decree or other document is sought to be cancelled, the amount or value of property for which the decree was passed or other document was executed.” It is necessary to ascertain the value of the decree in the previous case. The decree as I stated was the dismissal of the suit under Order 21, rule 63, Civil Procedure Code. Section 41 of the Court-Fees Act would apply to such a suit. In C.R.P. No. 1925 of 1958, I had to consider what the subject-matter of a suit was in respect of a case to which section 41 would apply. Under section 40 the question would not be exactly the same but rather what would be the value of the decree which was sought to be set aside namely the decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1958. The learned Subordinate Judge took that value to be the same value as the value of O.S. No. 3 of 1958. Indeed Mr. Ramanujam appearing for the State also contended for acceptance of the same value. I am not able to accept the same. Section 40 says that the subject-matter of the suit will be the amount of value of the property for which the decree was passed. Indeed Mr. Ramanujam appearing for the State also contended for acceptance of the same value. I am not able to accept the same. Section 40 says that the subject-matter of the suit will be the amount of value of the property for which the decree was passed. Now it is well-known that a suit under Order 21, rule 63, Civil Procedure Code is a continuation of the execution proceedings. In Narasimhachariar v. Raghava Padayachi1it was held that the finality of the adjudication in a claim suit would only enure to the execution proceedings of that suit. It would follow that if the petitioner has any title to the property the effect of the decree in O.S. No. 3 of 1958 would only be that he will be precluded from contesting that the decree-holder in O.S. No. 16 of 1949 could not proceed against that property so far as the amount due to him is concerned. Subject to that, his title to the property will remain unaffected. Therefore the amount or value of the property for which the decree was passed should beheld to be the decree amount in O.S No 16 of 1949. The plaintiff will, therefore, revise the valuation of this suit by giving the value of the decree in O.S. No. 16 of 1949 and paying the requisite Court-fee. It is needless to point out that the plaintiff will be entitled to take credit for whatever amount he has paid in O.S. No. 49 of 1959. No order as to costs. R.M. ------------- Order accordingly.