The valuation given by the plaintiff in a suit under Section 7(iv)(b) or 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act is final and conclusive. The Court has no jurisdiction to challenge the correctness of the valuation given by the plaintiff.

B.P.Jha, J.

1. I shall dispose of these two civil revision petitions by a common judgment as a common point of law arises for consideration in both these civil revision petitions.

2. The point for consideration is:

Whether the valuation given by the plaintiffs under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act (hereafter referred to as the Act) is to be accepted, or, whether the Court has jurisdiction to interfere with this valuation on the ground that it is not a reasonable one ?

3. In this connection, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions, namely, Gauri Shanker Mahansaria V/s. Union of India and Ors. 1980 Bihar Law Journal Reports 455., Smt. Prem Kishori Devi V/s. The State of Bihar 1981 Bihar Bar Council Journal 531, Secretary, Managing Committee, Dwarkanath High School, Mazaffarpur, and Ors. V/s. Gaurishankar Jha and Ors. Civil Revision No. 388 of 1979, disposed of on 20th September, 1979, Shree Thakur Durga Narainjee Asthapit Mandir and Anr. V/s. Surendra Prasad Sah and Ors. Civil Revision No. 1141 of 1980. disposed of on 24th March, 1982, Arunchalam Chetty and Ors. V/s. kangasamy Pillai A.I.R. 1915 Madras 948, (F.B), Chelasami Ramiah V/s. Chelasami Ramasami 18 Indian Cases 363 (Full Bench decision of Madras High Court) and S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathqppa Chettiar V/s. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chetiari -- .

4. It is also necessary to quote the bottom portion of Section 7(iv) of the Act which runs as follows:

according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal;

In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought;

On a persual of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that in the case covered under Section 7(iv)(b) and (c), the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. In other words, the option has been given to the plaintiff to value the relief in the plaint. Such a valuation cannot be interferred with either by the Court or by defendant. In such cases, the plaintiff is entitled to amend the valuation also. The Court has no authority in law to say that the valuation is low or arbitrary or is not a reasonable one. Such a power has not been vested in the Court under Section 7(iv)(b) and (c) of the Act. The authority to state the valuation lies with the plaintiff, and once he exercised such a right, the Court has no authority to interfere with such a valuation.

5. In my opinion, the valuation given by the plaintiff in a suit under Section 7(iv)(b) or 7(iv)(c) of the Act is final and conclusive. The Court has no jurisdiction to challenge the correctness of the valuation given by the plaintiff in view of the provision of Section 7(iv) of the Act. This proposition has been followed by the Supreme Court in the case of S. Rm. Ar. S. Sp. Sathappa Chettiar V/s. S. Rm. Ar. Rm. Ramanathan Chettiar(supra), as well as in all the decisions, mentioned above. This Court has followed the decision of the Supreme Court.

6. The facts of the Supreme Court decision (supra) are as follows. The plaintiff filed a suit for setting aside a decree in a previous partition suit, and, he valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction as well as for payment of Court fees at Rs. 15,00,000/-. In the memorandum of appeal, the plaintiff amended the valuation of the suit and fixed it at Rs. 50,000/-. The Supreme Court upheld the valuation given by the plaintiff at Rs. 50,000.00 on the basis of provision of Section 7(iv) of the Act. It is relevant to quote paragraphs 14 and 15 of the decision of Supreme Court which run as follows:

14. The question which still remains to be considered is whether the Division Bench was justified in directing the appellant to pay Court fees both on the plaint and on the memorandum of appeal on the basis of the valuation for Rs. 15,00,000. In our opinion, the appellant is justified in contending that this order is erroneous in law. Section 7, Sub-section (iv)(b) deals with suits to enfor