The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction and valuation of the subject matter are crucial in determining the proper court to try a suit, and the payment of court fees is based on the substantive relief prayed for.

1. Defendants 2 and 3, who are hereinafter referred to as the defendants, are the revision petitioners. The suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein, who is hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff. The 2nd respondent is the 1st defendant. In this C. R. P. he is only a formal party. The reliefs prayed for in the plaint are as follows: (a) Declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the Lottery Ticket No. AP 541855 (Kerala Bhagya, Mala) and that it belongs to him absolutely, (b) Consequently restraining the 1st defendant, his agents or men by a permanent prohibitory injunction from disbursing the first prize in Kerala Bhagya Mala Lottery drawn on 12-2-1987 at Kasaragod in respect of Lottery Ticket No. AP 541855 to the 2nd and 3rd defendants or restraining the said defendants from collecting the said amount in any manner whatsoever. Relief (c) is in respect of costs and (d) in respect of incidental reliefs.

2. Lottery Ticket No.AP 541855 (hereinafter referred to as the Lottery Ticket) won the first prize of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the draw held on 12-2-1987. Defendants claimed the prize producing the Lottery Ticket. It was under those circumstances the plaintiff filed this suit before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. In the plaint it is alleged that the plaintiff filed a complaint before the police and the concerned authorities and they informed him that he may pursue the matter before a court of law. Accordingly this suit was filed.

3. The plaintiff filed LA. No. 1143 of 1987 in this suit for temporary injunction for restraining the defendants from collecting the prize, pending disposal of this suit.

4. In the counter affidavit the defendants, apart from controverting the material averments in the plaint and petition for injunction, raised the contention that the suit was not maintainable in the Munsiff's Court, since the valuation of the suit as made in the plaint namely under S.25 (d) (ii) of the Court Fees Act was wrong. According to the counter affidavit the relief claimed was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court and as such the suit was not maintainable. The Munsiff's Court rejected this contention and issued an interim order of injunction against the defendants. In appeal this order was confirmed. The defendants are challenging those orders in this C.R.P. Notice was issued to the Government Pleader and his arguments were also heard.

5. Although learned counsel for the petitioner urged arguments in support of his contentions regarding jurisdiction as well as the correctness of the injunction granted, I am of the view that in this C.R.P. under S.115 C.P.C. the correctness of the injunction order passed concurrently by both the lower courts cannot be examined. Therefore I am only considering the contention that the court fee paid is not proper and that the Munsiff's Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit.

6. S.25 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (Act 10 of 1960) is as follows:

"25. Suits for declaration.- In a suit for a declaratory decree or order, whether with. or without consequential relief, not falling under S.26

(a) Omitted

(b) Omitted

(c) Omitted

(d) In other cases

(i) where the subject-matter of the suit is capable of valuation, fee shall be computed on the market value of the property, and

(ii) where the subject matter of the suit is not capable of valuation, fee shall be computed on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or on rupees three hundred, whichever is higher."

The Court fee paid in this plaint is as follows:

" Table:#1 "

(Court fee paid under S.25 (d) (ii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1960) S. 53 of Act 10 of 1960 is as follows:

"53. Suits not otherwise provided for.- (1) In a suit as to whose value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts, specific provision is not otherwise made in this Act or in any other law, value for that purpose and value for the purpose of computing the f payable under this Act sha