In suits for injunction involving immovable property and denial of title, section 26(a) of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961, determines the valuation for court fee and jurisdiction purposes.

1. - The plaintiff (petitioners) have filed' this revision under section 115 C P. C. against the order dated February 3, 1981, of the Civil Judge, Churu, by which the order dated. September 13, 1983, of the Munsif Churu deciding issue No. 5 in favour of the plaintiff, and subsequent direction for return of the plaint for presentation to the competent court, was maintained.

2. The plaintiffs filled a suit against the defendants on September 6, 1979 for mandtory and permanent prohibitory injunction Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a copy of the plaint available to me for the disposal of the revision. It is necessary to refer the following paras of the plaint :

ua0 4 ;g fd uD'ks ,sEl0 esa ,0ch0lh0Mh0 ekdZ }kjk fn[kkbZ xbZ Hkwfe oxZ QqV 1235 oknhx.k o izfroknhx.k dh 'kkeykrh pkSd dh Hkwfe dk Hkw&Hkkx gS blfy;s oknhx.k dks dkuwuu o balkQ pkSd dh ckdh eknk ekjkth ds lkFk fookfnr Hkwfe es eqLrdh miHkksx o mi;ksx dk gdgkfly gS pawfd izfroknhx.k dh mDr yksgs dh rkjksa dh QsaflZx ls fookfnr Hkwfe ds mi;ksx o miHkksx ls izdkj.k oknhx.k oafpr jg x, gS blfy, oknhx.k U;k;ky; }kjk uD'ks ,Dl esa ,0ch0lh0Mh0 ekdZ ls fn[kkbZ xbZ yksgs dh rkjksa dh QsflZx gVkdj izfroknhx.k ds uke fpj LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ikfjr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd og fookfnr Hkwfe dks miHkksx o iz;ksx djus ls oknhx.k dks uk jksds vkSj uk gh dksbZ ,slk dk;Z ;k vdk;Z djs ;k djkosa ftlls mDr fookfnr Hkwfe ij tksbaV dsjsDVj tksbaV dsjsDVj u"V gks tkos vkSj oknhx.k dks blds miHkksx o mi;ksx djus esa dksbZ ck/kk mRiUu gksA uEcj 7 % -----------------vr% Li"V rkSj ij ;g QsfUlx uktk;t dCtk djus dh fu;r ls fd;k x;k FkkA buds vykok vkf[kj ckj e`rd Jh jkefuokl ckWa?kyk izfroknh ds ewuhe Hkh uanyky ckWa?kyk dks Hkh fnukad 22&1&1973 dks pq: esa yksgs ds rkjksa dh QsfUlx gVkus ds fy, dgk exj mlus lkQ bUdkj dj fn;k ,oae fookfnr Hkwfe dks izfroknhx.k dh fefYd;r gksuk tkfgj fd;k tks loZFkk xyr ,oae fujk/kkj gSA a a a a a
The relevant para relating to the relief is as follows:-

d & eSusMsVjh bUtd'ku izfroknhx.k 1@1] 1@2 ds f[kykQ bl vej dk tkjh fd;k tkos fd og uD'ks ,Dl esa fn[kk, ,0ch0lh0Mh0 Hkw&Hkkx ij ls yksgs ds rkjksa }kjk fd;k gqvk QsfUlx gVk ysosA [k & izfroknhx.k 1@1] 1@2 ds f[kykQ fu"ks/kkKk bl vej dk tkjh fd;k tkos fd og oknhx.k dh gosyh es vkxs eq'rdkZ pkSd ds mi;ksx o miHkksx es vk;Unk dHkh Hkh fdlh izdkj dh ck?kk ;k :dkoV uk MkysA

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. It was asserted by the defendant that the land in dispute marked A,B,C,D. is not part of the 'chowk' but it is exclusively owned by the defendants and they are entitled to keep it in their possession and use it. The suit was valued by the plaintiffs at Rs. 400/- and court -fee of Rs. 30/- was paid by them The defendants denied the valuation. It was alleged that the valuation of the land in question is at least Rs. 16,500/- and the cost of the wires is Rs. 250/- and so the suit should have been valued at Rs. 16,750/- and court-fee should have been paid on this valuation. As the suit was under-valued, an objection was raised that the suit is not triable by the Munsif.

4. Inclusive of the relief, eight issues were framed. In this revision, I am concerned with issue No.5 which when translated into English reads as follows:- "Whether the suit has been under-valued, and, if so, what is the effect?" The burden of this issue was placed on the defendants. The evidence of the parties was recorded on all the issues. Learned Munsif took issue No.5 first for decision and after considering the plaint averments and the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the value of the land in dispute stated by the defendants as Rs. 16,750/- is correct and 1/2 of this amount comes to Rs. 8,375/- and this should rave been valuation of the suit. As the plaintiffs have valued their suit at Rs. 400/- whereas it should have been valued at Rs. 8,375/-, the learned Munsif opined that he has no jurisdiction to hear it and therefore, ordered for its return vide judgment dated September 13,1982. In view of his findin