( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 43 (1) of the Code, of Civil Procedure is by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 24/73 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum. He is aggrieved by an order made therein directing the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court having jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 2 ) THE material facts leading upto the appeal, briefly, are as follows:the appellant filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction on the ground that the respondents herein had denied his title to the suit property an agricultural land separately numbered and assessed for the purpose of land revenue. He valued the suit for the purposes of court-fee on the basis of the provisions of Section 7 (2) (b) of the Karnataka Court-fees and Suits valuation Act, 1958 (Court-fees Act, for short), at Rs. 251-69 P. and paid court-fee thereon. But, for the purpose of jurisdiction, the market value- of the land was stated as Rs. 54,000/ -. In view of the latter valuation, the suit came to be instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge. On behalf of the respondents (defendants) this valuation on the basis- of the market value was conceded as correct, but it was contended, inter alia, that having regard to the provisions of' the Court-fees act such separate valuation for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction was impermissible and that such valuation ought to be the same for both, and in that view, the suit would not be maintainable as instituted in the Court of, the Civil Judge. The learned. Civil Judge accepted this plea of the respondents, treating the issue as preliminary, and ordered the return of the plaint. Hence the appeal by the plaintiff.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the State, Sri A. Puranik, the learned High Court Government Pleader, contended that notwithstanding the fact that the suit land was assessable to land revenue and, therefore, liable for payment of court-fee only on the basis of valuation made in accordance with Section 7 (2) (b) of the Court-fees Act, having regard to the provisions of Section 50 of that Act, he would not be entitled to separately value the same for the purpose of' jurisdiction. On behalf of the appellant, Sri W. K. Joshi, learned counsel placing reliance on the provisions of Sections 7 (2), 26 (a) and the Proviso to Section 50 of the Court-fees Act, contended that such separate valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction was quite justified in the, facts and circumstances of the case.

( 4 ) IN the case of Nagaraj v. Nanjappa, 1972 (1) Mys LJ 106 = (AIR 1972 Mys 163) to which attention was invited by Sri Puranik, the Court was, concerned with a suit for injunction calling under Section 26 (c) of the Court-fees Act. The Court, therefore, in considering a question similar to the one raised in the case on hand, held that such separate, valuation for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction was not permissible. But in doing so, it has been observed clearly that the suit therein was not one falling within the purview of Section 7 (2) of that Act. The position in the instant case is that it is a suit plainly falling under Section 26 (a) and, therefore, liable to be valued for the purpose of court-fee in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (2) of the Act. Hence this decision, in our view, does not directly touch the issue before us.

( 5 ) IN the case of Subrao Ramba Ravalu Kedari v. Kallappa Nana Kadapure, 1972 (1) Mys LJ 180 = (AIR 1972 Mys 242) a Division Bench of the Court had occasion to briefly refer to the effect of the proviso to S. 50 (1) of the Court-fees Act. In that case a contention had been urged that in view of the proviso to Section 50 (1) of the Court-fees Act, two separate valuations regarding the market value of land which is the subject-matter of the suit was permissible, that is, one for the purpose of court-fee and the other for jurisdiction. In that context, it was observed thus :

". . . . . . . . . . . . . In order to understand the Proviso (to Section 5