Judgment :- This is a revision petition against an order passed by the learned District Munsif, Namakkal, who has taken as the preliminary point as to whether the court fee paid is not correct and whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. After discussing the relevant sections and case law, the lower court came to the conclusion that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct. This is a suit instituted by the respondents herein for the purpose of getting enhanced maintenance form the defendants in the suit. As per the settlement. Ex. A.1, the husband of the first respondent herein settled the properties on Veerandi Pillai, with a direction to pay 1 pothis of paddy and cash of Rs. 15 every year to the first respondent herein. After the death of Veerandi Pillai, the defendants, as heirs, got the property settled by the first respondent herein. In Ex. A.1 it if made clear that there is a charge over the properties settled in respect of the maintenance given to the first respondent herein. Apart from that, in Ex, A.I. there is a mention with regard to the close relationship between the first respondent and the settlee and also the necessity to pay the maintenance in keeping with the settlors status and income. The settlement, Ex. A.1, is of the year 1950 and now the first respondent claims 5 pothis of paddy and cash of Rs. 450 per year. There are various other contentions put forth by the plaintiff in the suit and the petitioners herein have filed written statement refuting all those contentions. Since they will be subject-matter of the suit that has to be tried, I am not expressing any opinion on the same. The petitioners herein question the court fee and want the first respondent herein to pay higher court fee valuing the suit under S. 23(c) of the Court fees Act. According to the petitioners, the claim is for annuities and hence the court fee should be paid calculating on five times the amount claimed to be payable for one year. Sec. 23(b) states— “In a suit for enhancement or reduction of maintenance, on the amount by which the annual maintenance is sought to be enhanced or reduced.” Under this provision, the respondents have not paid court-fees. Mr. Sec. 23(b) states— “In a suit for enhancement or reduction of maintenance, on the amount by which the annual maintenance is sought to be enhanced or reduced.” Under this provision, the respondents have not paid court-fees. Mr. Sethuratnam, the learned counsel for the respondents distinguishes the case reported in Bingi Neelamma v. Agadi Marappa 70 M.L.J. 128 and brought to his support the case reported in Surathu Sitharatnamma v. Pillarisetti Seshamma 49 L.W. 393. No doubt, both of these cases are not direct to the point. But it can be inferred from these decisions that the question of praying for enhanced compensation stands on a different footing and that cannot be equated with the claim for annuity. Mr. Sankaran, the learned counsel for the petitioners, brought to my notice the decision reported in Prosannadeb Raikat v. Purnachandra Saa A.I.R. 1934. Cal. 674 at 675 wherein it has been stated that ‘annuity’ is a yearly payment of a certain sum of money granted to another in fee for life or years charging the person only.” As far as the present Ex. A.1 is concerned, the charge is against the property apart from the fact that the parties are closely related. From the prayer in the suit, it is very clear that the plaintiff intended to claim only enhanced maintenance. This cannot be treated as a suit for annuity. Taking the facts of the present case into consideration , and also the nature of the claim made by the plaintiff in the suit, I am of the view that the suit will come only under the purview of a claim for enhanced maintenance. In that view, the court fee paid under Sec. 23(b) of the Court fees Act is correct and the contention that the court fee has to be paid under Sec. 23(c) of the Act, cannot be sustained. In these circumstances, this civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.