The main legal point established is that objections on grounds of under-valuation or over-valuation should be raised at the trial court and that where the relief claimed cannot be granted by a Revenue Court, the suit can be tried by the civil court.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Belonia, South Tripura in Title Appeal No. 6 of 2004 upholding the judgment and decree dated 16,11.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Belonia, South Tripura in T.S. No. 31 of 1997.

2. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, the learned senior counsel for the appellants strenuously urges that the following questions involves substantial questions of law:

1. Whether a suit for recovery of possession based on title can valued under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as extended to the State of Tripura and can a decree be passed if the suit is under valued by the plaintiff ?

2. Whether the pendency of a Revenue proceeding challenging the order of allotment of the suit land will bar oust the jurisdiction of a civil court to try such a suit ?

3. I have carefully noted the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and am not persuaded to hold that such questions involve substantial questions of law. For better appreciation of the points in controversy, a brief survey of the case will be appropriate. The respondents, who are the plaintiffs in the suit, instituted a suit against the appellants for declaring their title to the suit land and for recovery of possession thereof. It is not in dispute that the suit was valued at Rs. 10 only. The case of the respondents is that the suit land measuring 0.40 decimal forming a part and parcel of the land measuring 4.3 acres was allotted to them in the year 1986 and that they took over possession of the same thereafter, According to them on 15.7.1997, they were forcibly dispossessed of the suit land by the appellants which prompted them to institute the suit. The appellants contested the suit and filed their written statement by denying the respondents title to and possession of the suit land. It is the case of the appellants that they were in possession of the suit land by maintaining a pond thereon, which they constructed with financial assistance from the Government, They claimed that the order of allotment in respect of the suit land made in favour of the respondents was illegal, which is under challenge under Rule 14(2) of the Allotment Rules, 1962 and is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Belonia, on their application.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge framed the following issues:

(i) Have the plaintiffs any cause of action?

(ii) Have the plaintiffs right, title and interest over the suit land ?

(iii) Is the story of possession and dispossession from the suit land true ?

(iv) Are the plaintiffs entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

(v) What other relief or reliefs are the parties entitled to get ?

The respondents-plaintiffs filed the following documents : (a) one allotment order dated 24.7.1986, (b) one Khatian bearing No. 239 and (c) one trace map of Mouja-Madhya Bharat Chandra Nagar, Sheet No. 2 Tahsil Michara. On behalf of the appellant-defendants, the following documents were filed : (a) an application addressed to Pradhan Chittamara Gram Panchayat, Belonia, (b) one letter addressed to the District Magistrate and Collector, South Tripura by S.D.O/Belonia dated 10.9.1998, (c) one notice issued by SDO, Belonia on 15.5.1999 in connection with Case No. 4/Rev/99 and (d) one certified copy of the order dated 30.6.2001 passed by SDO/Belonia in connection with Case No. 4/Rev/99. In the course of trial, the respondents examined three witnesses on their behalf while the appellants also examined three witnesses from their side. On the conclusion of the trial, the learned Civil Judge: decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred Title Appeal No. 6 of 2004 before the learned Additional District Judge, South Tripura, who, as noted earlier, dismissed the same by the impugned judgment and decree.

5. Under Section 100, Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of th