S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The ticklish questions bristling with a conflict of precedent, which have necessitated this reference to the larger Bench, may well be framed in the terms following :-

(i) Whether the plaintiff has an absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on the relief claimed in a suit governed by Cl.(iv) of S.7 of the Court-fees Act ?

(ii) Whether the court has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the valuation given by the plaintiff in view of the provisions of S.7(iv) of the aforesaid Act ?

(iii) Whether any difference or line of distinction can be drawn qua the individual sub-cls. (a) to (f) of Cl.(iv) of S.7 of the said Act ?

(iv) Whether the headlong conflict of single Bench judgements in Kesho Mahton V/s. Ayodhya Mahton, AIR 1983 Pat 67 and Mannu Was V/s. Kisto Das, AIR 1983 Pat 272 can be reconciled ?

2. A representative matrix of facts giving rise to the issues aforesaid may be noticed from Civil Revision No. 851 of 1982. The plaintiff petitioner filed Title Suit No. 31 of 1978 in the court of the 3rd Munsif, Chapra, in respect of 19 kathas and 18 dhurs of land in village Tehti and valued his relief at Rs. 2,000.00 for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. This was based on the unrebutted stand that he had purchased the suit land under a registered deed dt. 7th May, 1971 for the aforesaid consideration. Defendants 1 to 4 and 7 to 10 filed a joint written statement, inter alia, taking a plea therein that the value of the disputed property was Rs. 15,000.00 which was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif and unless the petitioner pays the Court-fee for the said amount, the suit could not proceed The defendants further filed an application on the 2nd Dec. 1982 praying that an issue with regard to valuation and jurisdiction may be decided as the preliminary one. By the impugned order dt. 6th May, 1982 the learned Munsif framed a preliminary issue on the question of valuation and fixed the case for 17th May, 1982 for evidence thereon. In holding so, he noticed a conflict of precedent betwixt Smt. Prem Kishori Devi V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1982 Pat 47 and Salahuddin Hyder Khan V/s. hanoo Lal, AIR 1945 Pat 421 and preferred to follow the later judgement because it was by a Division Bench whilst the former was by a learned single Judge.

3. At the threshold stage of admission itself, the learned single Judge noticed the conflict of views and, expressing some doubt in the matter, admitted and referred the case to a Division Bench. Meanwhile identical and similar issues came up in Civil Revn. No. 462 of 1982 Bachi Devi V/s. State of Bihar and other cases before a Division Bench which, by its detailed order of reference dated the 26th of Mar. 1985, referred them for an authoritative decision by a Full Bench. The present case along with the other set of four cases was consequently directed to be heard together and that is how the matter is now before us.

4. As would appear hereinafter, the issues before us are so replete with precedents (both binding and persuasive) that it would be a patent exercise in futility to now launch on a dissertation on principle. Nevertheless, the manner in which the questions herein have come to the fore necessarily deserve to be recalled. Without delving further deep, it may be noticed that in Mt. Rupia V/s. Bhatu Mahton AIR 1944 Pat 17, a Full Bench of this Court after consideration of the existing principle and precedent took the view that under Cl.(iv) of S.7 of the Court-fees Act (hereinafter called the Act) the plaintiff has no absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on the relief claimed. Inevitably thereafter the said view held the field and was consistently followed within this jurisdiction by the Division Benches and single Benches. However, a frontal note of dissent against this long line of precedent was struck by the learned single Judge in Kesho Mahton V/s. Ayodhya Mahton (AIR 1983 Pat 67) (supra) holding that the ear