Judgment :- S. Sankarasubban, J. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 560/94 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam is the revision petitioner. He filed the suit for a declaration that the plaint schedule property belongs to him and for a perpetual injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from initiating revenue recovery proceedings against the plaint schedule property. The averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the plaint schedule property. The building in the plaint schedule property was constructed by him. Even though the property was purchased in the name of the fifth defendant, it actually belongs to him. Further, he perfected his title by adverse possession. The fifth defendant, who is the wife, was indebted to SIDCO. Revenue recovery notice was issued to the fifth defendant for the liabilities incurred by her with the fourth defendant and in the notice it was stated that the plaint schedule property be proceeded against. It is against that the present suit was filed. 2. The first prayer in the plaint is to pass a decree declaring that the plaintiff is the owner who is in actual physical possession of the plaint schedule property and that the 5th defendant has no authority or right over the plaint schedule property. The second prayer is to pass a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1 to 4 from initiating or from proceeding with the revenue recovery proceedings or from interfering with the right of the plaintiff for the peaceful enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The first relief was valued for the purpose of court fees at Rs. 16,000/- and the second relief was valued at Rs. 500. 3. Defendants 1 to 4 raised a contention regarding the court fees paid and accordingly issue No. 9 was raised as to whether the valuation made for the court fees is correct. From the order of the court below, it is seen that it was prayer No. 2 that was considered. The court took the view that since the relief was sought against the revenue recovery proceedings, relief No. 2 ought to have been valued at Rs. From the order of the court below, it is seen that it was prayer No. 2 that was considered. The court took the view that since the relief was sought against the revenue recovery proceedings, relief No. 2 ought to have been valued at Rs. 2,37,518 as is required under the proviso to S.27(c) of the Kerala Court fees and Suits Valuation Act, In the above view of the matter, the court below held that the valuation for the relief of perpetual injunction and the computation of the court fee thereon is not correct and the plaintiff was directed to take steps. It is against that the present revision is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. M.P. Abraham submitted that the court below is not correct in directing the petitioner to value the second prayer under the proviso to S.27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and pay court fee thereon. The proviso to S.27(c) of the above Act is, 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," Learned counsel submitted that this is not applicable to the petitioner, because the main prayer in the suit is for a declaration that the property belongs to him and the second prayer is that since the property belongs to him, it cannot be made liable for the liabilities of the 5th defendant. Learned Government Pleader brought to my notice the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sreekumaran v. State of Kerala & Ors. -1996 (2) KLT 21- wherein it was held that the amount'demanded being a specific amount the subject matter of the suit is the liability or otherwise of the plaintiff in respect of that definite sum. For the purpose of valuation the same has to be taken and court fee is payable thereon. In that case, the revenue recovery proceedings were taken against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 2,85,023.50. For the purpose of valuation the same has to be taken and court fee is payable thereon. In that case, the revenue recovery proceedings were taken against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 2,85,023.50. Balasubramanyan, J. speaking for the Bench ultimately held as follows: "Reading the plaint in the present case, we have no difficulty in agreeing with the finding of the court below that the subject matter of the suit is the amount claimed in the recovery notice and in respect of which the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration that he has no liability in terms of the notice". The above decision was followed by Ramachandran, J. in Manmathankutty v. Kerala State & Ors. - ILR 1997 (2) Kerala 743, 5.According to me, the facts of this case are different. Here, there is no liability on the part of the plaintiff. The liability is on the 5th defendant to the 4m defendant. According to the plaintiff, for the liability of the 5th defendant, the property of the plaintiff is sought to be attached, as though it belongs to the 5th defendant. Hence, the present suit is filed for a declaration of title and that the property belongs to him and not belongs to the 5th respondent. The prayer for injunction is against the revenue recovery authorities from proceeding against the property for the liabilities. The liabilities are not challenged .'Hence, according to me, this case does not come within the proviso to S.27(c) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Court below was not correct in holding that the relief has to be valued on the basis of the proviso. Plaintiff has paid court fee under S.27(c) of the above Act and there is no case that if it is valued under S.27(c) the valuation is not correct. Hence, I set aside the order of the court below and hold that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is correct. Civil Revision petition is allowed.