Judgment :- T. Ramachandran, J. This appeal is filed under O.43 R.1(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure from the order of the Munsiff of Devikulam in O.S. No. 255 of 1993 which is now transferred and numbered as O.S. No. 133 of 1996 before the Sub Court of Thodupuzha. 2. The appellant was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 255 of 1993 before the Munsiff s Court of Devikulam. That suit was filed for prohibitory injunction restraining the State from resorting to revenue recovery proceedings. Revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for realisation of Rs. 1,60,372/-. Fixed Court fee was paid under S.27(C) of the Court Fees Act showing the valuation as Rs. 500/-. The lower court held that as the subject matter was Rs. 1,60,372/- it exceeded its pecuniary jurisdiction. Thus, on 17.9.1996 the lower court directed return of the plaint in order to file it before the Sub Court of Thodupuzha. Aggrieved by that order this CMA is filed. 3. Notice was given to the Government Pleader and both sides were heard. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant the provision of law attracted is S.27(c) of the Court Fees Act ad that the lower court ought to have considered the valuation of Rs. 500/- alone shown i n the plaint. But it is to be noted that S.27(c) of the Act is applicable only if the subject matter is not capable of valuation. In the present case, the subject matter is Rs. 1,60,372/- and that ought to have been shown in the valuation of the plaint. But instead of that the plaintiff showed the imaginary figure of Rs. 500/- as valuation of the plaint. It was thus that fixed court fee was paid. It is true that the averments in the plaint are to be considered for the purpose of showing the correct valuation. But admittedly the subject matter is Rs. 1,60,372/- and that ought to have been shown as the valuation. Thus, the lower court was correct in holding that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Thus, it was correct in returning the plaint. I do not find any reason to interfere with that order. At that stage. learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he had already filed the suit before the Sub Court of Thodupuzha alter amending the valuation in the plaint. Thus, it was correct in returning the plaint. I do not find any reason to interfere with that order. At that stage. learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he had already filed the suit before the Sub Court of Thodupuzha alter amending the valuation in the plaint. Only when the appellant was directed to pay additional court fee this appeal is filed. It is clear that there is no bonafides in this appeal. Thus,! do not find any merit in this appeal. For the above reasons this CMA is dismissed without costs. Spoken on 16.1.1997 Producing the certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 255 of 1993 the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before me that the fixed court fee paid under S.27(c) of the Kerala court Fees and Suits Valuation Act was proper. It is seen. from the plaint that the grievance of the appellant is not against the amount shown in the notice and that there is no prayer to declaration. His case as seen in paragraph 4 of the plaint is only that the demand notice was devoid of any bonafides and it contained excessive and exorbitant amount. It is also seen that in the plaint the attack is against the mode of service of notice. In that particular case, the notice was served on the plaintiffs servant on 4.11,1993 and that mode of service is being attacked. Prayer (a) in the plaint shows that injunction is sought restraining the defendants from taking any steps against the plaintiff or on his property in pursuance to the illegal and void demand notice served on the plaintiffs servant on 4.11.1993. So, that is the main prayer in the plaint and that prayer is shown as not capable of valuation. It is thus that valuation is shown as Rs. 500/- and fixed court fee is paid under S.27(c) of the Act. In support of his argument the learned counsel cited the decision reported in Collector of Customs v. Abdurahimaiikutly (1980 KLT 806). That was a similar case where this court held that fixed court fee under S.27(c) of the Act alone need be paid. This decision further held that there was no necessity for incorporating the prayer for declaration and that the prayer for injunction was sufficient. 2. That was a similar case where this court held that fixed court fee under S.27(c) of the Act alone need be paid. This decision further held that there was no necessity for incorporating the prayer for declaration and that the prayer for injunction was sufficient. 2. Learned counsel has not gone through the amendment of S.27(c) of the Act as per Act 6 of 1991. This amendment was brought to the attention of the court by the learned Government Pleader. Now as per the amendment a proviso is added to S.27(c) of the act as follows: "Provided that where the relief sought by the plaintiff is in respect of money sought to be recovered from him such relief shall not, for the purpose of computation of fee, be valued at an amount less than one half of the amount sought to be so recovered". Thus, the court fee payable is on one half of the amount sought to be so recovered. 3. In this context, the learned counsel appearing 1 or the appellant cited the decision reported in Raghavan Nair v. State of Kerala (1988 (I) KLT 552) and Sreekiimaran v. State of Kerala & Ors. (1996 (1) KLJ 586) and submitted that only if it is a definite sum and only if it. is admitted by the plaintiff as due from him the proviso is attracted. It was further argued that the relief claimed in the suit was not with respect to the amount and it was only with respect to the notice issued. But on the plain reading of the proviso, it can be seen that whatever may be the relief sought by the plaintiff in respect of money sought to be recovered from him such relief shall be valued at an amount less than one half of the amount sought to be so recovered. Thus, it is clear that as per the proviso, court fee is to be paid on one half of the amount shown to be recovered. Learned counsel argued that the amount is not definite and that it was not capable of valuation. Thus, it is clear that as per the proviso, court fee is to be paid on one half of the amount shown to be recovered. Learned counsel argued that the amount is not definite and that it was not capable of valuation. This aspect was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in 1996 (1) KLJ 586 and held that "the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of the suit in the present case is not capable of valuation, cannot be accepted in the nature of the notice issued to the plaintiff, the nature of the averments in the plaint and the nature of the relief sought for by the plaintiff'. It was further observed that the amount demanded from the plaintiff is a specific amount. Thus, the subject matter of the suit is the liability or otherwise of the plaintiff in respect of that definite sum. It was further held that it is now settled that for the purpose of valuation what the court is concerned with is the subject matter of the relief. Thus, the court held that the subject matter of the suit is the sum shown in the notice. This is made further clear in paragraph 8 of the judgment by the Division Bench. Thus, it was held that the subject matter of the suit is the amount claimed in the recovery notice and in respect of which the plaintiff lias sought the relief of declaration that he has no liability in terms of the notice. It is true that in that decision what the Division Bench considered was the relief under S.25 of the Act as there was a prayer for declaration. The proviso to S.27 of the Act was not considered in that decision. When the language used in the proviso is so clear, there is no room for interpretation available to the plaintiff. It is clear that for the purpose of computation of court fee it should be valued at an amount not less than one half of the amount sought to be so recovered. Thus, whether the appellant admits the claim or not, he has to show the valuation as one half of the amount sought to be recovered from him. For the above reasons the earlier judgment of this court dated 15.1.1997 is reviewed. Thus, whether the appellant admits the claim or not, he has to show the valuation as one half of the amount sought to be recovered from him. For the above reasons the earlier judgment of this court dated 15.1.1997 is reviewed. The CMA is dismissed directing the appellant to show that valuation as one half of the amount shown in the recovery notice and pay the court fee accordingly before the Sub Court of Thodupuzha. No costs. Send a copy of this judgment to the Sub Court, Thodupuzha.