C.A. Vaidialingam, J.

1. In this Civil Revision Petition, on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner Mr. K.P. Ramunni Menon, learned counsel, challenges the order of the learned District Judge of Tellicherry, dated 28th October 1964, recording a finding on issue No. 17 in the suit as against the plaintiff.

2. Issue No. 17 related to the question as to whether the suit is correctly valued and proper court fee has been paid. Before I come to the order that has been passed by the learned District Judge, it is necessary to refer to certain proceedings that were taken on a prior occasion in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry.

3. The suit itself was originally filed as O.S. No. 14 of 1957 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode, and was for partition and separate possession at that time of 1/53 share in the assets of a Moplah Marumakkathayam thavazhi known as Eranhal Karuvante Valappil thavazhi. There is no controversy that as the suit as at present stands, the plaintiff will be entitled to claim only 1/56 share in the partible tavazhi properties. The plaintiff had included in the plaint five schedules as assets in which she is entitled to partition. Schedule A related to immovable properties, which were as many as 747 items. Schedules B to E consisted of movables; and in particular schedule D related to 14 elephants. Schedule F related to certain amounts, which, according to the plaintiff she is entitled to claim as and by way of maintenance for 12 years, in the sum of Rs. 21,600. Originally, the plaintiff, by prayer A, asked for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit properties, making the payment of the sum of Rs. 21,600 a liability on the thavazhi. She has also stated that the value of her share at that stage, namely 1/53, will be about Rs. 1,79,505-3-7. So far as this claim is concerned, it is seen that she paid a fixed court fee of Rs. 200 under section 37 sub-section (2) of the Madras Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955, (Madras Act 14 of 1955), hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. In prayer B the plaintiff wanted the 1st defendant, who is the karanavan of the thavazhi, to account. So far as that is concerned, she tentatively valued that relief in the sum of Rs. 200 and paid court fee of Rs. 15. Therefore, in respect of the two reliefs asked for originally, the plaintiff paid a total sum of Rs. 215 as court fees under the Act.

4. The suit appears to have been transferred from the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode, to the Sub-ordinate Judge's Court, Tellicherry, so as to be tried along with another suit, namely O.S. 7 of 1957 which was pending in the latter court. When it was so transferred to the Tellicherry Court it was given a number as O.S. 11 of 1957. It is seen that the Tellicherry Sub Court appears to have taken up the question as to whether the plaint has been properly valued in respect of the sum of Rs. 21,600, which the plaintiff had shown as due to her said; by way of maintenance for 12 years and which had been detailed in schedule F to the plaint. At this stage it may be stated that in schedule F to the plaint, apart from this amount of Rs. 21,600, she had also made a claim that she will be entitled to future payments of maintenance at the same rate from 4th January 1957. The learned Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry appears to have taken the assistance of counsel appearing for the defendants at the stage; and ultimately, by his order dated 3rd June 1957, after a reference to the nature of the averments made in the plaint as well as the reliefs asked for, he was of the opinion that the plaintiff must be considered to make a claim for payment of arrears of maintenance amounting to Rs. 21,600 shown in schedule F to the plaint. The learned Judge was ultimately of the view that the plaintiff will have to ask for a definite relief for recovery of the said amount, and in consequence, the learned Judge directed that the plaintiff should amend the plaint by claiming recov