Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. In the lower appellate Court the plaintiff, who was the appellant, paid as court-fee on his memorandum of appeal Rs. 100. The District Judge held that the correct fee payable was Rs. 412-7-0. The appellant failed to pay the deficit court-fee and the appeal was dismissed. From the dismissal he filed a second appeal in this Court, which he valued at Rs. 312-7-0, being the difference between Rs. 412-7-0 and Rs. 100. On that valuation he paid a court-fee of Rs. 35-15-0. Madhavan Nair, J., holding that on the second appeal the proper fee payable was Rs. 412-7-0, directed the appellant to bring into Court the balance of Rs. 376-8-0. This order was not complied with and the second appeal was dismissed.

2. The question we have to decide is, what was the subject-matter in dispute in the second appeal? A possible argument that the subject-matter is incapable of valuation and that therefore Schedule II, Article 17-B applies, may be at once dismissed. Mr. Srinivasa Aiyangar who appears for the Government Pleader does not put forward any such contention; nor has it found favour in any case dealing with this subject.

3. The provision then that is applicable is Articl