A valuation fixed by a court that is arbitrary, purely speculative, and not based on any evidence constitutes a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, attracting the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and allowing the High Court to interfere with the order.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. These two civil revisions have been heard together, because both of them arise out of the same suit, and, in both of them, the question of valuation of the suit arises, and, the petitioner, who is defendant No. 4, is also the same.

2. Civil Revision No. 161 of 1955 is directed against an order dated 17-11-1954 of Mr. Raghoji Prasad, Munsif, Third Court, Patna. Civil Revision No. 170 of 1955 is directed against an order dated 11-2-1955 of Mr. H. Singh, Second Court, Patna.

3. These two orders of the two different Munsifs were passed on two different occasions, but in the same suit. The circumstances under which the above two orders were passed, may briefly be stated as below:

4. The suit land is an orchard, having an area of 9.93 acres of land, recorded under khata No. 19, situated in Mauza Sikhandpur, mahalla Nasriganj, police station Dinapur, in the district of Patna.

5. The original tenants of the suit land were Ilahi Bux and others. The landlord of the holding in suit obtained a decree for arrears of rent on 30-10-1934 against Ilahi Bux and other tenants. In execution of this decree, the landlord purchased the suit land at a court sale on 19-8-1936 for Rs. 800/-; and, subsequently, on 16-2-1938 obtained delivery of possession over the same through Court.

6. The landlord, thereafter sold the land to defendant No. 1 for Rs. 1450.00 under a registered sale deed on 21-9-1938, Defendant No. 1, in his turn, sold the same land, on 28-4-1951, by a registered sale deed to defendant No. 4, the present petitioner, for Rs. 53,000/-.

7. Before the purchase of defendant No. 4 in 1951, and, after the sale by the landlord to defendant No. 1 in 1938, the plaintiffs-opposite party purchased the entire disputed land, under four registered sale deeds in February, 1948, from the heirs of Ilahi Bux and others, the original tenants of the land in suit, for Rs. 1450/-.

8. In July, 1948, there was a dispute about the possession of these lands between the plaintiffs on one side and defendants 1 to 3, defendants 2 and 3 being lessees from the defendant No. 1, on the other, which ultimately led to a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which the suit land was attached on 24-11-1948. The Sec.145 proceeding was ultimately decided on 29-6-1950 against the plaintiffs, and, in favour of defendants 1 to 3, holding these defendants to be in possession of the suit land.

9. The plaintitffs thereafter, brought the present suit on 12-6-1953 for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

10. The suit was instituted in the second Court of the Munsif at Patna, and, the plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs. 1,450/-, the value of the orchard in suit, for the purpose of payment of court-fee and jurisdiction both.

11. Defendants 1 and 4 appeared and filed their written statements in April, 1954, in which both of them disputed the valuation given by the plaintiffs, and, also challenged the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit the value of which according to them could not be less than Rs. 53,000.00 representing the market value of the suit land.

12. Issues were settled on 21-6-1954, which included issues Nos. 5 and 7 regarding valuation of the suit and the jurisdiction of the Court, On 17-7-1954, the defendant, presumably defendant No. 4, filed a petition praying that issues Nos. 5 and 7 be decided first before hearing the whole suit and, this prayer was allowed by the court on the same day.

13. But before this Question of valuation and jurisdiction could be decided, the suit was transferred on 29-7-1954 to the third court of the Munsif at Patna. The presiding officer of the court was Mr. Raghoji Prasad. Before him, defendant No. 1 also filed a petition praying that the valuation matter be decided first. The learned Munsif, accordingly, fixed 3-11-1954 for hearing the valuation matter. He, by his order dated 17-11-54 decided the question of valuation, and, found on the materials on the rec