In suits for declaration of title with consequential relief, the plaintiffs are entitled to put their own value on the plaint, provided that it is a reasonable value. The court has the power to revise the valuation put by the plaintiff and, if it finds that the valuation is insufficient or arbitrary, it has jurisdiction to fix a right value.

Dayal, J.

1. These two applications in revision arise out of order No. 23, dated the 11th July, 1956, passed by the Munsif, 2nd Court, Patna.

2. Civil Revision No. 728 of 1956 arises out of Title Suit No. 101 of 1955. It relates to 12 bighas and odd lands. The prayer in the plaint is for a declaration that the lands are raiyati lands of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction. Civil Revision No. 732 of 1956 arises out of Title Suit No. 102 of 1955. It relates to 7 bighas and odd lands. The prayer in the plaint is for a declaration that the lands are the bakasht lands of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction. Title Suit No. 101 is valued at Rs. 200.00 and Title Suit No. 102 is valued at Rs. 100.00 on the prayer for injunction. The cause of action in both the suits is alleged to be interference with the possession of the plaintiffs by the main defendants who are common in both the suits. The plaintiff of Title Suit No. 101 is the husband of the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 102.

3. In both the suits, the court-fee has been paid under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, One objection raised in the written statements of both the suits is that the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif. According to the defendants, the suits are, in essence, for possession. The further objection is that no arbitrary value could be put but the market value of the lands as determined by the Court should be the proper value for Court-fee and jurisdiction. According to the defendants. Title Suit No. 101 should be valued at Rs. 15,000/-, and Title Suit No. 102 should be valued at Rs. 9,000/-. The plaintiffs themselves had acquired the lands for Rs. 5,000/.

4. The question of jurisdiction and valuation was taken up first, and the Court below found the market value of the lands in suit to be much more than its pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court below, however, held:

"In my opinion, the prayers for issue of permanent injunction in these suits are really consequential reliefs which flow from or are ancillary to the prayers for declaration of title made by the plaintiffs in their plaints. So it is evident that the present suits come within the purview of Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, and the plaintiffs are liable to pay court fee only upon the value of these consequential reliefs as fixed by them, there being no standard to fix their market value by the Court."

5. In this view of the matter, the Court below has overruled the objection of the defendants as to valuation and jurisdiction.

6. Being thus aggrieved, the defendants have filed, the above-mentioned Civil Revisions.

7. Mr. Medni Prasad Singh, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that, in a suit to obtain a declaratory decree, with consequential relief, the Court is empowered under the law to revise the valuation put by the plaintiff, and, if, on such revision, it is of opinion that the valuation is insufficient or arbitrary, it has jurisdiction to fix a right value, and that the order in the case was, therefore, clearly revisable. He has also referred to Ramcharitar Pandey V/s. Easgit Rai, ILR 11 Pat 161 : (AIR 1932 Pat 9) (A). The contention of Mr. Singh is fully supported by this decision, and the facts of this case are precisely similar to the facts of the present case.

This suit was also a suit for declaration and for an injunction, and, in revision, it was held by this Court that under the law this Court is empowered to revise the, valuation put by the plaintiff. This case has been later followed and approved by a Full Bench of this Court in Mt. Rupia V/s. Bhatu Mahton, ILR 22 Pat 783 : (AIR 1944 Pat 17) (B). The case reported in I L R 11 Pat 161 : (AIR 1932 Pat 9) (A), has been subsequently followed by this Court in Noor Moham-mad V/s. Wazid Hussain, 1953 B L J R 100 (C) and in Umanath Tewari V/s. Sheodhari Missir, 1954 BLJR 360 (D).

8. The view of this Court has always been that, where a consequential relief is sought, the plaintiff, thoug