One of the interesting questions that arises for consideration in this second appeal is whether a plaintiff having himself given a particular valuation of the suit in the plaint for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction and having submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court, can be permitted, after the decision has gone against it, to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the suit was under-valued or that if proper valuation had been taken, the Court had no pecuniary jurisdiction.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The appellant, as plaintiff, filed a suit in the Court of the Munsiff, Silchar for cancellation of a khatian in respect of the suit land and for recovery of khas possession. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction at the amount of annual rental only and paid a fixed Court-fee of Rs. 1.10 under Article 5 of Schedule II of the Court-fees Act. The Shirastadar of the Court put a note to the effect that the valuation of the suit was not proper as the Court-fee should have been paid on the market value of the land. The learned Munsiff heard the plaintiff on the objection put by the Shirastada