Judgment : This appeal is directed against the order of remand made in A.S.No.37 of 1985 on the file of Sub-Court, Tirupattur. 2. Short facts are: The appellants had filed the suit for a declaration that the demand for payment of compensation, penal charges, as per the first defendant’s demand notice dated 27. 1980 is illegal and unlawful and arbitrary and without any basis and consequential injunction. The defen-dants resisted the claim taking various contentions, inter alia contending that the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs under Sec.25(d) of the Court-fees Act for the declaratory relief is not correct. After trial, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirupattur had found that the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs is correct and has also found the case of the plaintiff well founded and has decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant took up the matter in appeal in A.S.No.37 of 1985 before the Sub-Judge, Tirupattur. The learned Sub-Judge took up the question of court-fee as a preliminary point and had held that the court-fee paid by the plaintiffs under Sec.25(d) of the Court-fees Act is not correct and court-fee ought to have been paid ad valorem on the amount mentioned in the demand notice and has remitted the matter back to the trial court for collecting court-fee as aforesaid and for proceeding further. Aggrieved by the order of remand, the plaintiffs have come forward with this appeal. 3. Mr.M.I.Meera Sahib, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that the relief sought for is an intangible one and the proper section of law applicable is only 25(d) of the Court-fees Act and the court below is not correct in holding otherwise. Per contra, Mr.C.S.Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and Mr.V.Vive-kanandan, the learned Government Advocate, who appeared on notice from this court, would submit that the substance of the relief is to nullify the demand for payment of penal charges of Rs.41,556.20 which was reduced by the second defendant to Rs.22,537.80 and that ad valorem court-fee should be paid, on that amount. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. For the purpose of convenience, Sec.25(d) of Court-fees Act needs extraction. It reads as follows: “25. In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Sec.26- (a)........ (b)........ (c)........ 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. For the purpose of convenience, Sec.25(d) of Court-fees Act needs extraction. It reads as follows: “25. In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with or without consequential relief, not falling under Sec.26- (a)........ (b)........ (c)........ (d) in other cases, whether the subject matter of the suit is capable of valuation or not, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees four hundred, whichever is higher.” Sec.25(a) pertains to a case where the prayer is for declaration and possession of the property to which declaration relates to. Sec.25(b) relates to a case where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and relief sought for is with reference to any immovable property. Sec.25(c) relates to a case where prayers relate to the plaintiffs exclusive right to use, sell print or exhibit any mark, name, book etc. In the instant case, the declaratory prayer in the plaint reads as follows: “The plaintiffs therefore pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree declaring that the demand for payment of compensation, penal charges as per the 1st defendant’s demand notice dated 27. 1980 is illegal and unlawful and arbitrary and without any basis.” The above said declaratory relief will not fall under Sec.25(a), (b) or (c) and so necessarily it would fall within Sec.25(d) of the Court-fees Act and on the plain language of the section, it is apparent that the declaratory relief prayed in this case, would clearly fall within Sec.25(d) of the Court Fees Act In Ramu Udayar v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 1990 T.L.N.J. 107, Justice Ratnam (as he then was) had held in a similar case that the relief of declaration prayed for, if granted, would have the effect of nullifying the demand made in the order and when the relief of declaration has been properly valued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, it would be unnecessary for the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee on the amount mentioned in the order, in respect of which declaratory relief is sought for. In Selvakumar Rice and Oil Mills, Salem v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 99 L.W. 740, a single Judge of this Court had held, in a suit against the Electricity Board for declaration that the application of tariff code is arbitrary and illegal and ultra vires and for injunction restraining the defendants Board from collecting the amount where the plaintiff had valued the suit under S.25(d) of the Court-fees Act, that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is correct In Dr.Arthur Nathanial and another v. Dr.RP.Nathanial, (1962)1 M.L.J.. 420 , Chief Justice Ramachandra Iyer had held that where the right claimed in the plaint is an intangible one, Sec25(d) of the Court-fees Act is applicable. In that case, the suit was for a declaration that a particular business carried on under a specified name and style belongs to the plaintiff and for injunction. From the language of Sec.25(d) of the Court-fees Act and the catena of decisions referred to supra, the following propositions of law emerge: .(1) In a case where declaration sought for is with regard to a right which is an intangible one, the court-fee payable is under Sec.25(d) of the Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. .(2) Even in a case where the relief of declaration prayed for, if granted, would have the effect of nullifying the demand made under the impugned proceedings, when the relief of declaration has been properly valued under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, it would be unnecessary for the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee on the amount mentioned in the impugned order or proceedings, in respect of which declaratory . relief is sought for. 5. Per contra, Mr.C.S.Krishnamurthy, would rely upon Mahaveerachand v. Town Panchayat, Sripe-rumbudur, (1984)2 M.L.J. 45 , in which Justice Sathiadev has held that a court must be guided by the substance of the relief prayed for by taking into account the entirety of the pleas raised and reliefs prayed for in the plaint and in that case, the relief sought for is capable of valuation and ad valorem court-fee should be paid. I am clear that this ruling cannot be applied to the facts of this case, in view of the rulings which I have referred to supra and for the reasoning which I have given above. Mr.C.S.Krishnamurthy, would submit that the case may be referred to a Bench. I am clear that this ruling cannot be applied to the facts of this case, in view of the rulings which I have referred to supra and for the reasoning which I have given above. Mr.C.S.Krishnamurthy, would submit that the case may be referred to a Bench. When the law and a catena of decisions of this court has made the position clear, I do feel that this is not a case for referring to a Bench. 6. In view of what I have stated above, the finding of the lower appellate court that court-fee paid under Sec.25(d) of the Court-fees Act is not correct has to be necessarily set aside. The court-fee paid is correct and consequently the order of remand made by the lower appellate court has to be set aside. C.M.A.No.769 of 1992 is allowed, setting aside the order of remand of the lower appellate court The lower appellate court is directed to take the appeal to its original number and dispose it of expeditiously. No costs.