IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.765 of 2010 Smt. Shyam Pyari Devi Versus Triloki Nath Giri ----------- 08. 30.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the opposite parties. 1. The petitioner in this revision application has challenged the order of the court below rejecting his prayer for holding that the valuation of the suit is Rs.66,000/-and consequently beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. 2. The plaintiff has field the T.S.No. 83/204 for declaration of his title and recovery of possession as well as for permanent injunction on the basis of a sale deed dated 08.01.1995 in his favour with regard to the suit land. The defendant in his written statement contested the claim of the plaintiff on various grounds and has also raised objection regarding the valuation of the suit land as given by the plaintiff alleging that the same should be Rs. 66,000/- which amount has been mentioned as purchase money of the suit land by the defendants in their sale deeds. By filing a separate petition the defendant made a 2 prayer for deciding the maintainability of the suit as preliminary issue under Order 14 Rule 2(ii) C.P.C.on the ground that the same is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. 3. The learned court below allowed the parties to lead evidence on the question of valuation of the suit land and after considering the same it has been held that the valuation given by the plaintiff on the basis of his sale deed dated 08.01.1985 is correct and consequently the petition of the defendant was rejected. 4. The issue which has been raised in this revision application revolves around the interpretation of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. There is no dispute that the plaintiff’s suit for declaration of his title and recovery of possession is governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 which provides that the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. It has been now well settled that in a suit falling under this provision of the Court Fees Act, 1870 the valuation given by the plaintiff is ordinarily to be accepted. In the case of (Md. Alam Vs. Gopal Singh) 1987 PLJR 370 a Full Bench of this Court has considered the nature and scope of this 3 provision and conflicting interpretations given to the same by different judgments and has held as follows:- “23…. The legal result that thus emerges is that in suits falling under Clause 4 of Section 7, irrespective of the various sub clauses thereto, the estimation of the relief by the plaintiff has to be ordinarily accepted. Nevertheless, the plaintiff has not been given any absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on such relief and where he manifestly and deliberately undervalues and underestimates the same, the court is not a silent and impotent spectator thereof and has clear jurisdiction to interfere…” However, in the same judgment, it has been further observed as follows:- “… It is indeed an exceptional power to be exercised in rare cases for interference where on the face of the record the valuation is arbitrarily and demonstrably wrong and the plaintiff has manifestly and deliberately underestimated the same. Ordinarily this 4 should be evident from the pleadings of the parties themselves and only if it is so, the need for further consideration or evidence would arise …” 5. In the impugned order the learned court below has clearly held that the plaintiff has valued his suit according to the valuation given in his sale deed dated 08.01.1985 with further finding that this valuation is not whimsical or illusory. The prayer of the defendant to value the suit in accordance with the valuation mentioned in his sale deed of the year 2003 has not been accepted by the learned court below. In view of the legal principles enunciated in the above mentioned Full Bench decision of this Court, it is difficult to hold that the plaintiff has deliberately and manifestly underestimated valuation. 6. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. This civil revision application is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( V. Nath, J.)