1. This is an appeal against an order dealing with a matter of court-fees. The property in suit belonged to one Kanauji Lal who died in the year 1937. He was succeeded by his mother, Mt. Mithona. This lady and herd eceasedhusband, Shiva Prasad, had two other sons, the plaintiff, Chiranjive Lai, and one of the defendants, Mijazi Lal. The plaintiff instituted the suit in order to get two reliefs on the allegations that Mt. Mithona was wasting the corpus of the property which had passed to her from Kanauji Lal. One relief was for an injunction restraining her from transferring certain postal certificates. The value of these certificates was Bs. 1750. There is no dispute that the plaintiff had to pay a court-fee on one-tenth of the value, that is on Rs. 175. The other relief was for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of other movable and immovable property. In the plaint originally for purposes of jurisdiction the value put on this property was in the neighbourhood of Rs. 80,000 but at a later stage the plaintiff made an application for amendment showing that it was worth Rs. 5000. The question arose what court-fee should be paid on the second relief. The learned Judge seems to have assumed without argument that the court-fee should be paid ad valorem on the value of the property of which receiver was to take charge. We have not been shown any justification for this conclusion. It seems to us that the value of the appointment of a receiver is not really estimable. Our attention has been drawn to the case in Manamatha Nath Biswas v. Rohilli Moni Dasi ('05) 27 All. 406 where the learned Judges expressed the same opinion as the value of the appointment of a receiver to the plaintiff is not estimable, that is, as it is not possible to estimate the money value of the Subject-matter. We think that a fixed court-fee should be paid on the second relief under the provisions of Article 17(vi) of Schedule 2, Court-fees Act. That being so, the provisions of Article 1 of Schedule 1 do not apply. Section 7 of the Act is also not applicable, as it is intended merely to define j the valuation to be put to reliefs when court-fees are to be paid ad valorem. We, there, fore, allow the appeal and hold that the court-fee payable on the first relief is ad valorem on Rs. 175 and on the second relief a fixed court-fee under Schedule 3. The learned Judge rejected the application for amendment of the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction, and a ground, of appeal has been taken that the amendment should be allowed, but that is not a question which arises under the provisions of Section 6A, Court-fees Act, under which this appeal has been filed. We, therefore, pass no order on that point. The costs of this appeal shall abide the result and shall be included in the costs of the trial Court.