Judgment :- 1. Revision petitioners are the defendants in OS No. 199 of 1982 of the Sub Court, Tellicherry. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for the realisation of an amount of Rs. 5240/. It is alleged that he had suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 2,66,000/ on account of the failure on the part of the defendants to comply with its obligations in respect of an abkari contract. After setting off the amount of Rs. 2,60,760/ due to the defendants plaintiff claims the amount of Rs. 5, 240/ as damages. The plaintiff paid court fee on the amount claimed. Defendants took the stand that the court fee paid is not correct. The learned Sub Judge negatived the contention of the defendants and this has led to the Civil Revision Petition. 2. The short point that arises for consideration is as to whether the plaintiff has to pay court fee on Rs. 5,240/ or Rs. 2.66.000/ . It is the contention of the defendants that as the relief sought for in the plaint involves adjudication regarding the amount of damages said to have been suffered by him. amounting to Rs. 2,66,000/ he has to pay court fee on the said amount. The contention of the plaintiff is that he has claimed only Rs.5,240/ in the suit and therefore his liability is only to pay court fee on that amount. 3. S.22 of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 provides that in a suit for money (including a suit for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance or annuities, or of other sums payable periodically), fee shall be computed on the amount claimed. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as the plaintiff has claimed only Rs. 5.240/ as damages, be need pay court fee on the amount claimed as envisaged under S.22 of the Act, and he can never be called upon to pay it on any other amount. As the plaintiff has claimed damages specifying the amount he can get only that amount in the event of a decree passed in his favour. If the contention of the defendants is accepted, plaintiff will have to pay court fee on Rs. 2,66,000/- in the suit' whereas ultimately he can expect to get only Rs. 5,240/- in the event of the suit being decreed in his favour. 4. If the contention of the defendants is accepted, plaintiff will have to pay court fee on Rs. 2,66,000/- in the suit' whereas ultimately he can expect to get only Rs. 5,240/- in the event of the suit being decreed in his favour. 4. In Quam-ud-din v. Delhi Flour Mills Ltd. (XLVII Indian Cases 992) plaintiff claimed that Rs. 3625-4-0 was due to him from the defendant by way of damages for breach of contract and also alleged that Rs. 2,500/- was due by him to the defendant on account or the price of certain goods received, thus claiming Rs. 1125-4-0. In the above decision it was held that the court fee payable was on Rs. 1125-4-0, notwithstanding that the court bad to adjudicate upon the loss sustained by the plaintiff on account of the breach of contract which was estimated at Rs. 3625-4-0. In M S. C. Industries v. BC Bank (A.I.R.1956 Punj. 214) the plaintiff company claimed Rs 6023-1-9 which was made up of Rs. 30,000/- which the Company claimed as damages minus the amount which was due from them on the cash credit account. It was held that the court fee was payable on Rs. 6023-1-9. Thus the legal position is that court fee need be paid ad valorem on the amount actually claimed in the suit. The defendants' contention if accepted will lead to a ridiculous position of the plaintiff being compelled to pay huge-amount as court fee whereas he could expect to get only a fraction of the said amount even if the suit is decreed in terms of the plaint. As the plaintiff claimed Rs. 5,240/- he has only to pay court fee, on that amount and be cannot be called upon to pay court fee on the amount which he wanted to be adjusted. In Quam-ud-din's case (XLVII Indian Cases 992) it is held as follows: "There can be do manner of doubt that in determining the sum to be awarded to the plaintiff, the Court has to adjudicate upon the amount of the loss sustained by the plaintiff on account of the breach of contracts; but we do not think that the amount should determine the value for the purpose of Court fee. Indeed, there are many suits, e. g., those for the rendition of accounts between parties or between principals and agents or suits involving cross-demands, in which the Court has to adjudicate upon various large items in dispute between the parties, though the actual amount claimed by the plaintiff is a comparatively small sum of money. In all these suits it is the amount claimed by, or decreed to, the plaintiff which determines the Court-fee leviable on the plaint, and not the various sums which may be the subject-matter of controversy between parties and upon which the Court may have to record its findings before arriving at the final conclusion." There cannot be any doubt that the plaintiff has only to pay court fee on the amount actually claimed in the suit. There is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.