T. Sathiadev, J.

1. Revision petitioner contends that the decision of the Court below on issue No. 5 in O.S. No. 753 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruvallur, that the court-fee is payable 'ad valorem' on Rs. 15, 649. 20 and hence the said Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, is erroneous.

2. In the plaint, in paragraph 8, it is stated that the cause of action for the suit arose, when defendant served the demand for recovery of Rs. 15,649.20 on the plaintiff, and hence, he has sought for a declaration that the demand under assessment by defendant Town Panchayat, Sriperumbudur, is invalid and unenforceable, and also for consequential injunction.

3. Mr. K.N. Balasubramanian, learned Counsel for petitioner, by adverting to the order passed, submits that the decision in A.P.S. Electricity Board v. Ramachandra Reddy relied upon could have no application, because of the different wordings adopted in Sections 24(d) and 26(c) of Andhra Pradesh Court-fees Act. Section 25(d) of Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1955, having used the expression "whether the relief is capable of valuation or not", the valuation adopted by the plaintiff, is correct.

4. As contended by him, provisions o