( 1 ) IN this revision the only contention urged is that for the purpose of jurisdiction the Civil Judge Junior Division Chanasma has valued the suit claim at Rs. 8 0 and odd on the allegation of the plaintiff that he is entitled to claim one-half share and has therefore held that the Civil Judge Junior Division had jurisdiction. It is contended that the Junior Division Judge has no jurisdiction but only the Senior Division Judge because the suit half share claimed by the plaintiff must have been valued at such higher amount. The property in which half share is claimed consists of land houses and Wada. The dispute in revision relates only to the valuation of the land. On this point the learned Judge has observed in para 5 of his judgment as follows:for the purpose of all the three preliminary issuses it is necessary to find out and determine the market value of the suit properties. For the purpose of the agricultural lands sec. 6 (5) (a) of the Bombay Court Fees Act will apply. The total assessment is Rs. 106-82. P. which is multiplied by 121/1/2 times which comes to Rs. 1335-25 P. on which the plaintiff has to pay the Court-fee stamp on his 1/2 share. But by applying