KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) A short question that arose for consideration before the principal munsiff at bijapur was "whether defendants 1 to 6 further prove that the plaintiffs have not paid proper and sufficient court fee?". ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs have filed a suit original suit No. 1 of 1986 for the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs are in lawful possession of the suit premises in the capacity as tenants and also for the relief of declaration that the suit properties are the wakf properties and the consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 6 restraining them from interfering with the lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiffs. ( 3 ) THE only contention of the petitioner before the trial court was that the declaration that the suit properties are wakf properties would attract Section 44 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (hereinafter the 'act' ). ( 4 ) HOWEVER, the learned principal munsiff at bijapur with regard to the contention of the petitioners that the suit properties are wakf properties, after detailed discussion has held that Section 44 of the Karnataka court fees and suits valuation Act, 1958 does not apply. Section 44 of the act reads as follows:"suits relating to public matters. In a suit for relief under Section 14 of the religious endowment Act, 1863 (Central Act No. Xx of 1863), or under Section 91 or Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Central Act v of 1908), or under Section 50 of the Bombay public trusts Act, 1950 (Bombay Act xxix of 1950), the fee payable shall be fifty rupees". ( 5 ) ON a reading of Section 44 of the Act, the learned principal munsiff at bijapur has held that Section 44 of the said act basically relates to suits of only charitable institutions and relief under the religious endowment act. He has further held that the valuation of the properties by the plaintiffs with respect to the relief of declaration that the suit schedule properties are the wakf properties is not proper and correct and has also held that the plaintiffs ought to have valued the suit under Section 24 (b) of the act and not under Section 44 of the act. Therefore, the learned principal munsiff has directed the plaintiffs to pay deficit court fee after calculating court fee on the basis of the market value of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit. ( 6 ) IN these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the principal munsiff at bijapur. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. ( 7 ) SINCE the suit is of the year 1986 and the proceedings have been stayed, the learned principal munsiff at bijapur will dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, on or before 31st of december, 1995. --- *** --- .