The valuation test under Article 133(1)(b) requires that the judgment sought to be appealed involves a claim or question respecting property of an amount or value not less than Rs. 20,000 in addition to or other than the subject matter of the dispute.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 133 of the Constitution for a Certificate in respect of the decree of a Division Bench of this Court in Second Appeal No. 819 of 1955 dated July 28, 1966 reversing the decree of the lower appellate court arising out of Title Suit No. 530 of 1956 of the Second Court of Munsif at Ali-pore.

( 2 ) ON or about December 23, 1953. one Purnendu Narayan Roy Deb Barman, since deceased predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 1 along with the respondent No. 2, instituted in the First Court of the Munsif at Alipore a suit for eviction of the petitioner from flat No. 2 on the around floor of premises No. 136b Rash Behari Avenue, Ballygunge, Calcutta. The said suit on transfer to the second Court of the Munsif at Alipore was renumbered as Title Suit No. 520 of 1956. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif on December 20, 1957.

( 3 ) AGAINST the said decree the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge of 24 Parganas at Alipore, which, on transfer to second court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore, was registered as Title Appeal No. 205 of 1958. The said appeal was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment and decree dated August 9, 1958.

( 4 ) AGAINST the said appellate decree the plaintiffs preferred a second appeal to this court being Second Appeal No. 819 of 1959. During the pendency of the said second appeal in this court, one of the plaintiffs, namely, Purnendu Narayan Roy Deb Burman having died the respondent No. 1 before us was substituted in his place in the said second appeal after setting aside abatement caused by the death of Purnendu Narayan. Long after such substitution, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before us by an indenture of sale dated May 31, 1965 sold and conveyed the entire premises No. 136b Rash Behari Avenue, of which the disputed premises form a part, to the respondent No. 3 before us. The said second appeal was allowed with costs by a Division Bench of his Court, of which one of us was a member, by its judgment and decree dated July 28, 1966. It is against this decree passed in second appeal by this Court that the petitioner intends to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court.

( 5 ) THE judgment of the Division Bench being one of reversal of the decree of the lower appellate court, the only thing to be established by the petitioner in that the valuation test laid down by Article 133 is satisfied in this case, unless we are satisfied that it is otherwise a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court under Sub-clause (c) of Cause (1) of Article 132,

( 6 ) LET us first of all consider the question of valuation. The statement in paragraph 23 of the petition represents the petitioner's point of view. The material portion of the said para runs thus:"that although for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction the suit was valued under section 7 (xi), Clause (c) at Rs. 2,400, the subject matter of the suit is in respect of a tenancy in the ground floor of premises No. 136b, Rash Behari Avenue just opposite Deshapriya Park on Rash Behari Avenue, where the value of land is at least Rs. 25,000 per cottah. The building, of which the disputed premises form part, is a big four-storied buildings. . . . . The said premises No. 136b. Rash Behari Avenue is worth several lacs of rupees and the value of the premises in suit is at least Rs. 50,000. The monthly rent of the tenancy in suit is Rs. 200, the capitalised value whereof is Rs. 48,000. As such, the amount or value of the subject matter of the dispute in the court of the first instance and still in dispute on appeal was and is in excess of Rs. 20,000".

( 7 ) THE petitioner seems to think that as the market value of the flat comprised in his tenancy is Rs. 48,000, the value of the subject matter in suit is in excess of Rs. 20,000. It is needless to point out that the value of the property is something different from the value of the subject matter in suit. The subject matter in di