ORDER The question which has arisen in this C.R.P. is whether the suit O.S. No. 141 of 1962 of the Dt. Munsif Court Palani, should be valued for the purpose of Court-fee under section 25(d) of the Court-fees Act, as done by the plaintiff, or under section 28 of the Court-fees Act as ruled by the learned District Munsif. The plaintiff is the Muthavalli of a certain wakf. On account of allegations of mismanagement the Wakf Board passed the following order: “So we direct that the respondent (plaintiff) will continue as a muthavalli but that a supervisory body be appointed to supervise the management of the wakf by the respondent. Both the parties will suggest a few names of independent persons who can be thought of for this committee. The duty of the committee shall be to watch the management of the wakf by the muthavalli and give him necessary advice and guidance and if he does not comply with such guidance to inform this Board for necessary action”. The relief which the plaintiff seeks in the suit, is for a declaration that this order is not valid and binding on him and for a consequent injunction restraining the proposed committee from interfering with the plaintiff's management. It is clear from a perusal of the order of the Board that they did not intend this committee to function as Muthavalli, but it had to function only as a watch dog -so to say-to see that the plaintiff acted rightly, give him advice and guidance, and report to the Board in case he acted wrongly. Section 28 of the Court-fees Act refers to declaratory decrees whether with or without consequential relief in respect of trust property between the trustees or rival claimants to the office of the trustee. By no stretch of interpretation can it be considered that the plaintiff and the members of the Committee appointed by the Wakf Board to watch the plaintiff's work, stand in the position of rival trustees or rival claimants to the office of the trustees. It is only in the latter event, will section 28 of the Court-fees Act be attracted. By no stretch of interpretation can it be considered that the plaintiff and the members of the Committee appointed by the Wakf Board to watch the plaintiff's work, stand in the position of rival trustees or rival claimants to the office of the trustees. It is only in the latter event, will section 28 of the Court-fees Act be attracted. The learned District Munsif has clearly misdirected himself, when he observed that from the allegations in the plaint it appeared that there was a dispute to the office of the trustee, and that the dispute was whether the hereditary Muthavalli had a right to manage or whether the Committee constituted by the Board should attend to the management. As already mentioned, this Committee has only a watching brief, and its powers are only advisory, namely, to give necessary advice and guidance to the plaintiff, and to report to the Board when the advice is not followed. It has no power to function as trustee as such. No doubt, in the plaint, in paragraph 16(e), there is an allegation that the plaintiff cannot be required to share his powers and rights as Muthavalli with absolute strangers in the matter of the management and administration of the wakf, and that the effect of the order of Board would be to nullify the plaintiff's hereditary right of Muthavallai and cause detriment to his powers of management of the institution. Though the plaintiff took this alarmist view of the effect of the’ appointment of the Wakf Committee, in paragraph 14 of the plaint, he has clearly stated that the powers of this Committee were only to watch the management of the wakf by the plaintiff-Mufhavalli and give him necessary advice. That would show that the plaintiff was aware that the jurisdiction of this Committee did not extend beyond that of an advisory body. The fact that he took an alarmist view of the result of the interference of the Committee, in a later paragraph of the plaint, would not show that he had conceded that they had become rival trustees. Section 28 will be attracted only if there is a dispute between him and the rival trustees to the office of the trustee. In my opinion the valuation of the plaint under section 25(d) of the Court-fees Act is correct. The Revision is allowed and the valuation in the plaint is upheld. Section 28 will be attracted only if there is a dispute between him and the rival trustees to the office of the trustee. In my opinion the valuation of the plaint under section 25(d) of the Court-fees Act is correct. The Revision is allowed and the valuation in the plaint is upheld. There will be no order as to costs. K.S.-----Revision allowed.