The court's power to correct the valuation of a suit under Section 8(c) of the Court Fees Act is limited to cases where the valuation put by the plaintiff on the plaint is palpably absurd, manifestly illogical, or arithmetically wrong.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained by the plaintiffs against an order passed by Mr. D. N. Chakladar, learned Subordinate Judge, Bur-dawn, dated 26-6-1952, requiring the plaintiffs to pay ad valorem fees on the aggregate value of the consideration recited in three kobalas which are sought to be set aside by the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the plaintiffs allege that three kobalas, consideration, whereof respectively amounted to Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 16,000/-and Rs. 21,000/-, were not binding on the J plaintiffs for the reasons stated in the plaint. The prayer (Ka) of the plaint was that according to the statements made in the plaint and the circumstances of the case, the different kobalas in respect of the property described in the schedule to the plaint are invalid, fraudulent, collusive and without consideration and that a declaration be made that they are not binding on the plaintiffs and, if necessary, the same might be set aside. Prayer Kha of the plaint was one for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession. In the Court below the contesting defend -. ants 1 to 4 raised a plea that the suit was not properly valued and proper court-fees had not been paid. The case which they made at the trial was that ad valorem court-fees should be paid on the aggregate consideration money recited in the three kobalas. On behalf of defendant 5 the position taken up was that the market value of the properties covered by the three kobalas was Rs. 81,000/- and ad valorem court-fees had to be paid on the said sum. 2a. Before the learned Subordinate Judge it was the common case of the parties that the proper section of the Court-fees Act applicable to the case was Section 7 (4) (c ). It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the valuation put by the plaintiffs on tthe plaint under Section 7 (iv) (c) was liable to be corrected under Section 8 (c), Court-fees Act. The learned Judge accepted this contention and by virtue of the powers vested in him under Section 8 (c) he revised the valuation put by the plaintiffs on the plaint, namely, Rs. 5,500/- and enhanced it to Rs. 52,000/- the total consideration recited in the three kobalas.

( 3 ) THE question which was debated before the learned Subordinate Judge related to the effect of the prayer for cancellation of the said kobalas. The learned Subordinate Judge seemed to be of the view that as the plaintiffs were seeking to set aside the three kobalas which recited a consideration of Rs. 52,000/-, the benefit to the plaintiffs could fairly be assessed at Rs. 52,000/- and there was an objective standard of valuation.

( 4 ) IN this Court Mr. Sen who has appeared in support of the petition has prayed before us for amendment of prayer Ka of the plaint by deleting that part of the prayer which prayed for setting aside of the three kobalas, if necessary. It is now well settled that the plaintiffs can amend the prayers contained in the plaint even though the effect of the granting of such a prayer might be to affect the amount of court-fees payable on the plaint. As the plaintiffs did not seek to amend any of the allegations made in the plaint, but limited their prayer to a modification of the prayer portion of the plaint, no valid objection can, in my opinion, be taken to this course. The only effect is that the plaintiffs by reason of the amendment would not be entitled hereafter to a decree for cancellation of the three kobalas. The prayer in the plaint must be limited to a prayer for a declaration that the said kobalas are not valid and are not binding on the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction. There is no dispute that a suit of the description like the present after amendment, clearly comes within Section 7 (iv) (c ). There can. obviously be no objective standard of valuation of the suit as it stands after amendment.

( 5 ) MR. Mukherji who appeared for opposite parties 1 to 4 contended that in so far as the prayer for a permana