The subject-matter of a suit is the relief sought, not the property over which the relief is sought.

( 1 ) THIS case raises the question of valuation of the subject-matter of a suit where the provisions of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act are not applicable. The petitioner brought the present suit for possession of certain lands on the averment that the defendant was a licensee thereof and that the licence had been revoked. There was also a prayer for mesne profits. The suit was valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 110/ -.

( 2 ) ON an objection being raised by the opposite side that the Munsif's court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, the learned Munsif considered the question and came to the conclusion that the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was well above the pecuniary jurisdiction of his court. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge affirmed the learned Munsif's finding,

( 3 ) BOTH parties agreed that the court-fees are payable on the plaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (v), Court-fees Act "according to the value of the subject-matter". The clause itself contains provisions indicating what such value shall be deemed to be where the subject-matter is land. It is not disputed that calculated on that basis the value of the subject-matter for the purpose of court-fees as ascertained under Section 7 (v) would be well beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Munsif.

( 4 ) IT is necessary to remember, however, that in the present case we are not concerned with the valuation for the purpose of court-fees but with valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction. The Suits Valuation Act was passed by the Legislature "to prescribe the mode of valuing certain suits for the purpose of determining the Jurisdiction of courts with respect thereto. " The 8th section thereof provides that"in suits other than those referred to in the Court-Fees Act, 1870, Section 7, paragraphs (v), (vi) and (ix), and paragraph (x), Clause (d) court-fees are pavable ad valorem under the Court Fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. "thus in determining the value of a suit in which like the present suit court-fees are payable under Section 7 (v), Court-Fees Act we get no assistance from the provisions of the Court-Fees Act because Section 8 deliberately excludes it from the application of the rule that the value as determinable for the purpose of court-fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. It therefore becomes necessary to ascertain the value for the purposes of jurisdiction without any assistance from other provision of law, bearing , in mind only the language of Section 6 Civil P. O. that"save in so far as is otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein contained shall operate to give any Court Jurisdiction over suits the amount or value of the subject-matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits (if any) of its ordinary jurisdiction. "the question that has to be decided is what is the subject-matter of the present suit. one view is that the property over which the suit is brought is the subject-matter of the suit and the value of the property is the value of the subject-matter of the suit. The other view is that it is not the property over which the suit is brought that can be called the subject-matter of the suit, but it is the relief that is sought in respect of the property that is the subject-matter of the suit.

( 5 ) THE second view was adopted by the Patna High Court in -- 'mt. Barkatunnisa Begum v. Mt. Kaniza Fatma', AIR 1927 Pat 140 (A), where the Court said:"the subject-matter of the suit is the right td eject the defendants and the value of that right is the value at which the defendants' right to remain in the house under the license of the plaintiff may be valued. "

( 6 ) THE Bombay High Court took a different view in -- 'batilal v. Chandulal', AIR 1947 Bom 482 (B ). The reasoning of the Bombay decision appears in the following passage from Mackli