MURLIDHER RAO, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the petitions are directed against the order dated 29-10-1988 in o. S. No. 1131/82; by the said order the X Additional City Civil Judge, bangalore, has directed the plaintiff to pay Court fee on Rs. one lakh, the value of tha subject matter as stated in the plaint. ( 2 ) C. R. P. No. 875/89 is filed bythe Karnataka Board of Wakfs (hereinafter called as 'board'), who is plaintiff in O. S. No. 1131/82. C. R. P. No. 5271/89 is filed by Joharmal Jawanji and Central Muslim Association, who are defendants in the said suit; while the plaintiff claims complete exemption from payment of Court-fees, the defendants contended that the market value of the property, on the date of suit, is much more than Rs. one lakh. They contended that the Court below could not have accepted the valuation as given in plaint, but should have determined the market value, on the date of suit, after recording evidence. ( 3 ) THE property is described thusin the plaint Schedule : "premises bearing Old Nos. 33 and 36 and now No. 204/1 situated at Arcot Srinivasachar Street, Bangalore-53, bounded as below :- east : Arcot Srinivasachar Street west : Private property south: -do- north: -do- measuring eastwest = 32 ft. Northsouth-44 ft. ". ( 4 ) THE plaintiff has paid fixedcourt-fee of Rs. 15/-purporting to do so under Notification No. HD 19 CCF 61 dated 10-8-1961 issued under Section 70 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958- defendants contended that the said Notification is not applicable. ( 5 ) THE prayers made by plaintiffread thus :"the plaintiff prays for following reliefs : (a) The suit property may be declared as wakf property. (b) To declare that the sale of the property in favour of the defendant No. 1 and also other sale transaction in respect of the schedule property is null and void. (c) A decree for possession of the said property in favour of plaintiff from defendant-1 may be awarded. (d) The cost of the suit may be awarded against the 1st defendant ; and (e) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice". (c) A decree for possession of the said property in favour of plaintiff from defendant-1 may be awarded. (d) The cost of the suit may be awarded against the 1st defendant ; and (e) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice". ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff themosque is a minor Muzrai institution and is in existence since the time of hyder All Tippu Sultan. It was under the management of second defendant, who was the Muthawalli since 1940. This was so till 1948. When due to political disturbances he was forcibly dispossessed. On 17-7-1975 the first defendant purchased the property by registered sale deed from S. L. Phutane and he has been in possession since then. The plaintiff stated that suit property is a part of Khazi Mosque (Sunni) alias Sultanpet Mosque alias khilla Mosque, which is notified as wakt under Section 5 (2) of the Wakf act in Official Gazette dated 7-6-1s65. The relevant extract of the said notification reads thus :"serial Description of the Wakf pro- number perties and particulars there- of such as Survey No. House no. etc. 1 2 129 khazi Mosque. Sunni No. M, 200, Sultanpet shops No. 85 (85 (232) Old Taragpet Shops (3) No. 37/3, (202), 37/2 (199), 37/1 (201), lands at Karisandra S-No. 2, 12, 14, 18, 20, 25,29,30, 33, 34, 35, 37, 148 23a-". ( 7 ) THE plaint schedule propertiesare admittedly separate shops bearing no. 35 and 36 (old), new number being 204/1. The Court below held that the suit properties are not included in the properties notified in the Gazette. Further as on the plaintiff's own showing its value is Rs. one lakh, it has called upon him to pay Court-fee on that valuation. ( 8 ) WHILE in the Court-below theplaintiff relied on the Notification No. HD 19 CCF 61 dt. 10-8-1961, in this court the learned Counsel relied on notification No. LAW 2 LCF 81 dt. 11th April, 1983. one lakh, it has called upon him to pay Court-fee on that valuation. ( 8 ) WHILE in the Court-below theplaintiff relied on the Notification No. HD 19 CCF 61 dt. 10-8-1961, in this court the learned Counsel relied on notification No. LAW 2 LCF 81 dt. 11th April, 1983. The language of these two Notifications read thus :"notification No. HD 19 CCF 61 dated 11th April, 1961 notification No. LAW 2 LCF 81 dated 11th April, 1983 1 2 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 70 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (Karnataka Act No. 16 of 1958), the government of Karnataka hereby directs that the fee chargeable in respect of suits for the restoration of properties of the natute contemplated under the Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act, 1959, shall be reduced to a maximum in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation act, 1958 (Karnataka Act 16 of 1958) the Govt. of Karnataka being of the opinion that it is necessary in public interest so to do, hereby directs that the fee chargeable in respect of Suits and Appeals for restoration, declaration and cancellation in respect of 1 2 of Rs. 15 in respect of the said suits in the whole of the State of Karnataka properties notified under Section 5 (2) of Wakf Act, 1954 (Central Act 29 of 1954) or registered under Section 25 or 28 of the said Wakf Act, filed by the Karnataka Board of Wakfs, Bangalore, shall be reduced to a maximum of rupees fifteen in respect of the said suits and appeals in the whole of the State of Karnataka". (emphasis supplied) ( 9 ) THE language of 1961 Notification makes it clear that it applies to"suits for restoration of properties of the nature contemplated under Public wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act, 1959 (Centrat Act 29 of 195s)"; whereas the Notification of 1983 applies to "suits and Appeals for restoration, declaration and cancellation in respect of properties" notified under Section 5 (2) of the Wakf Act, 1954 (Central Act 29 of 1954) or registered under Section 25 and 28 of the said Wakf Act, if the suit is filed by tho Karnataka Board of Wakfs. The two notifications govern different types of suits dealing with different types of properties. They are not overlapping. The two notifications govern different types of suits dealing with different types of properties. They are not overlapping. The Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Act, 1959 which became enforceable on 1st September, 1959 was enacted to extend the period of limitation for suits to recover possession of immoveable properties forming part of public wakfs; the period for filing suit was extended upto 31-12-1970. By local amendments in Andhra Pradesh, Delhi and tamil Nadu this period was further extended to 31-12-1972. No such amendment having been done in karnataka is brought to my notice. R. 35 the effect of the notification dated 10th August, 1961 is to charge fixed court-fee of Rs. 15/- in respect of the suits governed by Act 29 of 1959, referred to above. It is manifest that the suit contemplated by this Act is a suit for restoration of possession only in respect of properties which are "public Wakf" as defined in Section 2 of the said Act, In view of the pryears made in the plaint, this is a suit for declaration of the property as Wakf property; for declaration that sale in favour of defendant-1 is null and void and lastly for possession. Such a comprehensive suit with so many reliefs is not covered by Act 29 of 1959; therefore there is no difficulty in holding that the Notification dt. 10th Aug. 1961 and fixed Court-fee stipulated therein has no application to the instant case. ( 10 ) COMING to the Notification of11 th April, 1983, though it embraces all comprehensible type of suits instituted by the Wakf Board it restricts its operation to the properties notified under Section 5{2) of the Wakf Act or registered under Section 25 or 28 of the Wakf Act. Apparently the plaint schedule properties are neither notified under Section 5 (2) nor they are registered under Section 25 or 28 of the Wakf Act. Whereas the notified khazi Mosque is situated in Sultanpet, the suit schedule properties are situated in Arcot Srinivasachar Streot. There is nothing on record to connect the suit properties with the one notified under action 5 (2} of the Act. In the plaint UTS averred that the suit properties are part of the propenies belonging to the institution. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it is identical. There is nothing on record to connect the suit properties with the one notified under action 5 (2} of the Act. In the plaint UTS averred that the suit properties are part of the propenies belonging to the institution. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it is identical. If the 'part' is capable of being described and is identifiable separately such 'part' should be notified under section 5 (2) of the Act So long as the 'part' is capable of existing independently and can be enjoyed, possessed and dealt with separately unless specifically notified under Section 5 (2) of the Act it is not possible to hold that it is a notified wakf property. Moreover, Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act is a fiscal statute which calls for strict interpretation. Unless specifically and in clear terms exempted, the provisions of the Act apply. Therefore, the suit properties being unidentifiable with the notified property, the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the Notification dated 11th April, 1983. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons theconclusions of the Court below do not warrant interference and C. R. P. 875/ 89 deserves to be rejected. ( 12 ) COMING to C. R. P. 5271/89,filed by defendants, it deserves to be aliowed. Soctfon 11 (2) of the Kamataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act requires the Court to determine the valuation of the subject matter of the suit, if a dispute is raised regarding the valuation. The def8ndant in written statement has contended tha market value of the property is mud more than one lakh rupees. Under valuation of the property affects the interests of the State, which is entitlec to charge it as per the market value. In such circumstances, the Court below has to determine the market value, after holding an enquiry, after giving opportunity to both sides to prove their respective contentions. ( 13 ) HENCE, I make the followingorder: (1) C. R. P. 875/89 is dismissed; the plaintiff Wokf-Board is not exempted from payment of court-fee. The Notifications of 10-8 1981 and 11-4-1983 are not applicable to the suit properties. (2) C. R P. 5271/89 is allowed; the court below is directed to determine the market value of the suit properties, as on the date of suit, after affording opportunities to both the side. No costs. --- *** --- .