The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the subject matter of the suit and the application of legal principles to determine the substantive relief sought by the plaintiff.

Balusubramanyan, J.

In this Revision, the plaintiff questions the order of the Court below holding that the plaintiff has not valued the reliefs in the plaint properly and asking him to value the reliefs on the basis of the amount shown in the demand notice in respect of which he was seeking relief in the suit.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit praying for a declaration that the Revenue Recovery proceedings No. R. R.1/91/PGT imitated by defendants 1 to 4 is illegal, erroneous and unsustainable besides being malafide and for a further declaration that the plaintiff has no liability to pay any amount which has accrued after 8.4.1987 and that the liability of the plaintiff is only to pay the amounts due to the second defendant upto 8.4.1987. The plaintiff also sought a consequential decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from proceeding further with the revenue recovery proceedings referred to above as against the plaintiff. He valued the suit for the purpose of declaration and consequential injunction at Rs. 1,000/-and paid a Court fee under S.25(d)(ii) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and paid a court fee of Rs. 20. It may be noticed that the prayer in respect of declaring his liability as confined to the period prior to 8.4.1987 was introduced by way of an amendment as per order dt.1.4.1993. The cause of action for the suit as set out by the plaintiff was the issuance of a demand notice to him on 13.3.1991 and the alleged threat held out by defendant No. 4 to the plaintiff that both movable and immovable properties of the plaintiff would be attached and proceeded against for the amounts due under the notice. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that the action of the defendants in issuing such a notice to him and threatening coercive action was highly illegal and erroneous and that the defendants were to be restrained by way of a permanent injunction from proceeding with the Revenue Recovery against the plaintiff. In Para. 3 of the plaint the plaintiff submitted that in the notice served on him by defendant No. 4 it was stated that an amount of Rs. 2,85,023.50 with interest at 15% from 1.9.1990 was due from the plaintiff to the second defendant, being the arrears of Kerala Financial Corporation loan due from the plaintiff as on 30.6.1990. It was really strange and surprising as to how defendant No. 4 had arrived at that exorbitant amount.

3. Objection having been raised on behalf of the defendants to the valuation adopted by the plaintiff and the Court fee paid by him, the trial Court' took up that question preliminarily and entered a finding therein to the effect that the plaintiff was bound to value the suit at Rs. 2.85, 023.50 being the subject matter of the suit and was consequently liable to pay court fee under S.25 of the Court Fees Act on such a valuation.

4. When the Revision came before one of us, considering the contentions raised on behalf of the plaintiff-revision petitioner and the decision brought to the notice of the Court, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for being heard. That is how the matter has come up before us.

5. The trial court rested its conclusion on the finding that the notice in respect of which the relief is claimed by the plaintiff shows a specific amount as being liable to be recovered from the plaintiff in his capacity as the partner of a firm which had originally taken a loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation and since the plaintiff was contending that he was not liable to pay that amount in view of the fact that he had retired from the partnership on 8.4.1987 and has consequently disputed his liability to pay the amount shown in the demand notice, he was bound to pay court fee on that amount, the same being the subject-matter of the suit. In challenging this conclusion of the court below learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was governed by S.25(d)(ii) of the Court Fees Act and would come under S.25(d)(i) of the Cou