JUDGMENT Sen, J.
1. On 10th August 1929 plaintiff instituted a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Bareilly for dissolution of partnership, rendition of accounts and partition of certain immovable property. He also prayed for the appointment of a receiver. He stated in para. 15 of his plaint:
For purposes of jurisdiction and payment of court-fee, the suit has been valued at Rs. 2,500 but a further court-foe would be paid within the period allowed by the Court on such additional amount as is found due to the plaintiff against the defendant at the time when the decree is passed.
2. The Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain suits up to the value of Rs. 4,000' Where the value of the subject-matter in dispute exceeded Rs. 4,000, the proper forum for the suit was the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly. The defendants contested the correctness of the value put by the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff had intentionally undervalued his claim and that the property in dispute was worth more than Rupees 10,000. There being a contest regarding the value of the suit, the Court amin was directed to submit a report as to the valuation of the property. His report was that the value of the partnership assets exceeded Rs. 20,000, No objection was taken to the valuation put by the amin. The plaintiff however contended that his suit was in substance a suit for accounts within the purview of Section 7, Clause 4(f), Court-fees Act, that the court-fee was payable on the amount on which the plaintiff chose to value his claim, that Section 8, Suits Valuation Act, having provided that the value as determinable for purposes of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction should be the same, and the plaintiff having valued his claim at Rs. 2,500 the Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This contention was repelled by the Munsif. He held that the value of the suit being more than Rs. 4,000, the proper Court to entertain the suit was the Court of the Subordinate Judge. He accordingly ordered that the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. An appeal was preferred to the District Judge. He agreed with the view of the Munsif and dismissed the appeal. An application has now been presented to this Court under Section 115, Civil P.C. and the contention raised is that the Munsif had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of the application for revision on the ground that it was within the jurisdiction of the Munsif to go into the question as to what was the value of the subject-matter in dispute and that even assuming that the Munsif had gone wrong, he had jurisdiction to decide the case rightly or wrongly and no application for revision lay under Section 115, Civil P.C. The learned Counsel for the applicant relies upon a ruling of this Court reported in Re. Chhatarpali v. Kalap Dei A.I.R. 1932 All. 114. We are clearly of opinion that this case has no bearing upon the question in issue. In Jageshra v. Durga Prasad Singh A.I.R. 1914 All. 72 Tudball, J., held that:
it was of considerable doubt as to whether under Section 7, Clause 4, Court-fees Act a plaintiff was entitled to put on his relief a fictitious value and not the correct and proper value which is known to him.
3. Richards, C.J., held that:
the proper meaning to be attached to the latter words of Section 7, Clause 4, Court-fees Act, was that the plaintiff should truly state the amount at which he valued the relief sought, and that he was not entitled to put in a fictitious value when the relief was capable of valuation.
4. We are of opinion that the Suits Valuation Act and the Court-fees Act are purely fiscal enactments and they have no bearing on the question as to which is the proper Court for the institution of the suit having regard to the value of the property. This matter must be taken to have been set at rest by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Baohappa, Subrao Jadhav v. Shtdappa Venkatrao A.I.R. 1918 P.c. 188 in which it has been laid down as follows:
When a notional value, different from the real value, in placed upon property for the purpose of the court-fee, such notional value cannot displace the real value for the purpose of jurisdiction.
5. The following propositions of law may be laid down:
(1) Where the valuation of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction is contested, the value must be determined by the Court; and (2) where the valuation can be ascertained correctly, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to put an arbitrary value upon his claim, nor can he be allowed to overvalue or undervalue his claim with a view to choose his forum. In our view the Courts below have arrived at the right decision. The application for revision is entirely without force. We accordingly dismiss it with costs.