- (1.)In this revision petition Mr. V. G. Sankaranarayana Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner, attacks the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge of Kottayam on issue No. 1 regarding the correctness of the court fee paid by the plaintiffs.
(2.)Issue 1 related to the question as to whether the plaintiffs have paid proper court fee. At the request of the 1st defendant, this issue was tried as a preliminary issue, and ultimately the learned Subordinate Judge by his order, which is under attack, has held that the plaintiffs should have paid the court fee upon the market value of their shares as contemplated in S.37(1) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. The correctness of this view expressed by the learned Judge is challenged in this revision on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioners.
(3.)There can be no controversy that for purposes of court fee the averments in the plaint will have to be prima facie accepted. A denial or other controversy raised in the written statement by the defendants has absolutely no bearing on the question of considering the court fee that is payable on the plaint; and for that purpose the court will have exclusively to confine its attention to the averments made in the plaint itself. The truth or otherwise of the allegations in the plaint will not arise at the time of deciding the question of the correct court fee to be paid.