The issue of undervaluation of the suit is addressed in the context of the Court's jurisdiction and the proper valuation of the subject matter of the dispute. The courts below found that the suit was covered under a specific article of the Court Fees Act, and accordingly, the valuation was to be based on the value of the Schedule-B2 land (!) . The appellate court upheld this approach, emphasizing that the proper valuation of the suit is primarily a matter between the plaintiff and the State, and that the courts are empowered to direct payment of court fees based on the valuation of the disputed land (!) .

Furthermore, the appellate court clarified that the question of whether the court fee paid was adequate is a procedural issue and does not necessarily invalidate the suit or appeal, especially when the court has directed the plaintiff to pay the proper fee (!) . The courts also noted that valuation and court fee are distinct issues, and the inadequacy of court fees paid does not automatically render the suit invalid or improperly valued (!) .

In this case, the courts' decisions were based on the legal principle that valuation for court fee purposes is a procedural matter, and the courts have the authority to rectify or direct the proper valuation and fee payment (!) (!) . Therefore, the question of undervaluation pertains mainly to procedural correctness rather than substantive rights, and the courts' approach to valuation was within their jurisdiction and consistent with legal principles.