1. - This is an application by the defendants against an order passed by the First Additional Munsif, Bhagalpur, on 24-4-1982 in the valuation matter for the purpose of jurisdiction.

2. The plaintiffs opposite party have instituted Title Suit No. 159 of 1979 for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of land measuring 21/2 kathas with a house thereon situate in the town of Bhagalpur, within its Municipal area. Shortly stated, the Plaintiffs case is that they had purchased the land along with the house on 3-7-1948 by a registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 600 and they came in possession over the house. The plaintiffs were later approached by Mosst. Jichhia and Mosst. Tetari and the plaintiffs sold the land and the house for a sum of Rs. 700 by a registered sale deed dated 2-8-1948. Plaintiffs further case is trial the two widows named above could not arrange for the consideration money and the above sale deed was cancelled by the plaintiffs.

3. The defendants-petitioners are maternal grandsons of Mosst. Jichia. Mosst. Tetari sold her share in the land and the house to Panchoo Das. father of the petitioners, by a registered sale deed dated 3-5-1956 for a consideration of Rs. 1,000. The petitioners thereafter came in possession over the entire disputed land and the house. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants-petitioners, it was alleged that the suit had not been properly valued for the purpose of Jurisdiction. They put the valuation of the suit property at Rs. 17,000/-.

4. The question regarding valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction was taken up as a preliminary issue by the learned Additional Munsif and by the impugned order it was held that the valuation of the suit property at Rs. 700 given by the plaintiffs was correct.

5. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the property in suit is situate in the Bazar of Bhagalpur town which is a Commissionary and the valuation of the suit property at Rs. 700 is grossly undervalued and is arbitrary. His submission is that the property might have been purchased by the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 600 in the year 1948, but there has been a phenomenal rise in the price of the urban properties in recent years and it is beyond imagination that an area of 2r Kathas land with a house thereon shall be worth Rs. 700 only. Learned counsel also contended that Ext. A. a sale deed dated 13-7-1978 in respect of 3 dhurs of land situate in the same area for Rs. 1,000 and another sale deed produced by the petitioners have not been taken into consideration by the learned Additional Munsif. According to Ext. A the valuation of the suit land should be Rs. 7,000 per katha.

6. Mr. Pashupati Pd. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party. on the other hand, relying upon a single Judge decision of this Court in Kesho Mahton V/s. Ayodhya Mahton (AIR 1983 Pat 67) has contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the valuation given by the plaintiffs either for the purpose of court-fee or for the purpose of jurisdiction. In this case reliance was placed on a Supreme Court decision in Sathappa Chettiar V/s. Ramnathan Chettiar (AIR 1958 SC 245) and it was held that the valuation given in the plaint either for the purpose of jurisdiction or for the purpose of court-fee was final and could not be interfered with by the Court.

7. It has been rather the consistent view of this Court that where the valuation fixed by the Court is arbitrary, it must be held that the Court has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in fixing the arbitrary value and the High Court may interfere in revision. In a Full Bench decision of this Court in Mosst. Rupia V/s. Bhattu Mahton (AIR 1944 Pat 17). it was held 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 pl