This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.5.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.)No. 1. Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 18 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate Court below allowed the appeal directing return of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code' only) by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29.1.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)No. 1 Kamrup, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 199 of 1998 holding that the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit with reference to the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the trial Court.

2. Before narrating the facts leading to the filing of this appeal, the Court noted the two substantial questions of law that need to be decided in this appeal, which were formulated at the time of admission of the appeal. The two substantial questions of law are as follows -

"(i) Whether the learned lower appellate Court committed illegality in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court on ground of pecuniary jurisdiction without any proof of prejudice being caused to the respondents/defendants?

(ii) Whether in a suit for declaration with consequential relief of recovery of possession and permanent injunction the Court fee is payable under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act and whether the valuation of the suit is illegal?"

3. In order to answer the aforesaid two questions, a brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal is necessary -

The appellant herein is the plaintiffin Title Suit No. 199 of 1998 who brought the suit seeking the following reliefs -

"a) For a decree, confirming the plaintiff's right, title and interest and possession over the suit land (described in the schedule below);

b) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and employees from entering into the suit land and from raising any construction over the suit land;

c) For a decree for the cost of the suit against the defendants jointly and severally against them;

d) For reserving the plaintiff's right of joining the prayers and/or for filing other appropriate suits against the concerning persons or Authorities in respect of the suit land described below;

e) For a declaration that the General Power of Attorney No. 1745 dated 4.6.97 was/is void in law and inoperative and is not binding on the plaintiff and on the suit land."

4. The statements made in paragraph 8 of the plaint may be noticed herein. The same being relevant is quoted hereunder -

"8. That for the purpose of jurisdiction the reliefs are valued at Rs. 24,600/- which comprises the value of the suit land for the interest of the plaintiff at Rs. 24,600 and the injunction at Rs.100/-. The plaintiff being the owner and possessor of the suit land, the Court fee is paid on Rs.45/- being the five times of the Annual Land Revenue of the Suit Dag which is Rs.9/-and for the purpose of injunction, the Court fee is paid on Rs. 100/-."

5. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were initially arrayed as defendants in the suit and subsequently by amendment of the plaint the defendant No. 3 was arrayed in the suit for proper adjudication since the defendant No. 3 was power of attorney holder in respect of the suit land.

6. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit by filing a common written statement wherein in paragraphs 2 and 3 they pleaded as follows -

"2. That the suit is under valued as the value of the suit property is more than Rs. 1,50,000/-and therefore the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. That the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped and therefore the plaint is liable to be rejected."

7. In support of the facts pleaded in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the written statement the defendants have pleaded that the plaintiff had executed a deed of general power of attorney in favour of the defendant No. 3 in respect of Schedule land on 4.6.1997 whereby the said defendant No.