JUDGMENT

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition of immoveable property. The suit was brought in the Munsiff's Court at Bajitpore, and one of the objections raised in the defence was that the suit was not cognizable by the Munsiff, as the value of the entire 16 annas of the property, of which the plaintiffs claim a share was in excess of the limits of the Munsiffs pecuniary jurisdiction. The Courts below have over-ruled that objection holding that, as the value of the share claimed was within the limits of the Munsiff's jurisdiction, the suit was brought in the proper Court; and then, on the merits, they have found in favour of the plaintiffs and given them a decree.

2. In second appeal the only ground urged is that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, because jutisdiction should be determined not with reference to the value of the share claimed by the plaintiffs in a suit for pardon, but with reference to the value of the entire property sought to be divided; and in support of this contention several cases have been cited of which we need only refer to three; viz., Baidya Nath Addya v. Makhar Lal Addya ILR 17 Cal. 680; Vydimtha v. Subramanya ILR 8 Mad. 23