Horwill, J.

1. This petition has been filed against the finding of the District Munsif of Udumalpet in O.S. No. 46 of 1940 that he has jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. The suit was one for the administration of the estate of one Kairunnissa Bibi, for accounts and for division of the assets amongst the heirs under the Muhammadan Law. The short point that arises in this petition is whether the provisions of Section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court-Fees Act or Article 17-B of Sch.II apply. At first sight, there is a very formidable array of authority in support of the contention of Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar for the respondent that an administration suit should be treated as a suit for accounts and that, therefore, Section 7 (iv) (f) is applicable. He has cited Khatija v. Shekh Adam Husenally I.L.R.(1915) 39 Bom. 545 Shashi Bhushan Bose v. Manindra Chandra Nandy I.L.R.(1916) Cal. 890 Saraju Bala Dasi v. Jogemaya Dasi I.L.R.(1917) Cal. 634 Shivaprasad Singh v. Prayagkumari Debee I.L.R.(1933) Cal. 711 San Paw v. Ma Yin (1918) 55 I.C. 258 and Ma Thin On v. Ma Ngwe Hmon I.L.R.(1934) Rang. 512 in most of which cases it was held that Section 7 (iv) (f) was the proper provision of the Court-Fees Act