1. On a reading of the plaint in the case, I am clearly of opinion that the suit was properly valued under Section 7, Clause (iv)(f) of the Court-Fees Act and that ad valorem court-fee is not payable. The learned District Judge relied on a decision of Byers, J., in Sokkammal v. Arunachalam Pillai : (1945)2MLJ460 . From the judgment of the learned Judge it appears that he was dealing with a suit for the recovery of specific sums. In that case accounts had already been furnished by the guardian to the District Court and in the plaint details of amounts misapplied and misappropriated were given. The prayer was for the recovery of such sums. But in the present case the prayer is to pass a decree, directing the defendants to render a true and proper account with reference to the transactions, collections, expenses, remissions, amounts allowed to become time-barred, non-collections, etc., set forth in several paragraphs of the plaint and for the appointment of a Commissioner to examine the accounts and vouchers that have been produced already and handed over to the plaintiff Devasthanam by the first defendant. In paragraph 6 the first charge against the trustees is in respect of the 'Estimated loss' on account of the deliberate and regular underselling of paddy for which the defendants are bound to account, if they fail to give a proper explanation. After giving some of the instances of such underselling the paragraph winds up in this way: The plaintiff estimates the loss to the Devasthanam on account of this underselling at about Rs. 3,500.; The second charge is 'systematic and unauthorised excess expenditure. After giving instances the plaintiffs say that the defendants are bound to give a satisfactory explanation for the above alleged excess expenditure and in default be liable for such sums as may be unexplained. Likewise there are charges on account of unauthorised and unjustified litigation expenses in respect of amounts not collected from the lessees and cases of faked up receipts and vouchers, etc. The plaint in this case clearly differs from the plaint with which Byers, J., was concerned in the decision cited above. On behalf of the Government Pleader it is pointed out that even in the present case there is an allegation that the managing trustee caused the accounts of the temple to be examined carefully in the light of audit reports. But the facts in Sokkammal v. Arunachalam Pillai : (1945)2MLJ460 were different. The accounts were submitted to the Court by the guardian after they had been audited under the orders of the Court. What is alleged in paragraph 5 of the present plaint is that the fact of mismanagement, misappropriation, acts of negligence, etc., happened to be discovered in the light of the audit reports. It is not as if the accounting party had submitted the accounts as in Sokkammal v. Arunachalam Pillai : (1945)2MLJ460 and what remained was only to surcharge and falsify items. In this case the auditor examined only the accounts of the temple and the ex-trustees never submitted an account of their management and it is not in respect of such an account that the plaintiffs now seek to surcharge and falsify. On the other hand, in my opinion the present case falls within the seope of the rulings in Payidimarri Madhava Sarma v. Veluri Seshagirirayadu (1935) 70 M.L.J. 292 and Muhammad Hussain v. Shaik Muhammad Malumiar : AIR1936Mad525 . The order of the lower Court is, therefore, set aside. No order as to costs.