In a suit for possession of immovable property, the court fees shall be computed on the market value of the property, subject to a minimum fee of rupees twenty. The market value shall be determined as on the date of the presentation of the plaint.

1. - This is a defendant's revision against the order passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Udaipur dated July 25, 1972 holding that the suit was properly valued by the plaintiff and the court fee paid thereon was sufficient. The opposite party No. 1 fired a suit in the court of Munsif Udaipur on August 15, 1968 for possession of immoveable house property described in para 2 of the plaint & for mesne profits in respect thereof. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 2000/- and paid a sum of Rs. 135/- by way of court fees. The defendant applicant objected to the valuation of the suit and stated that the suit was undervalued and the court for paid was insufficient. The trial court recorded evidence in respect of the valuation of the house property in dispute in the suit and held in favour of the plaintiff as mentioned above. Hence this revision application.

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the testimony of the expert witness DW 3 Ambalal, who was a retired Executive Engineer and was an approved valuer of properties on behalf of the Government of India and the detailed valuation statement produced by him showed that the fair market value of the house property in dispute in, the year 1968 was about Rs. 11,909/-. Learned counsel submits that there was no reason for the trial court not to rely upon the evidence of the aforesaid expert witness. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, on the other hand, argued that the applicant could not maintain a revision petition before this Court on the question of payment of court fees and that this Court should not interfere with the finding arrived at by the trial court in respect of the valuation of the suit.

3. In the present revision petition, the question is not only as to whether the proper court fees has been paid by the plaintiff, but the question of valuation of the suit is likely to affect the jurisdiction of the trial court. If the house property in dispute in the suit was of the valuations the suit was of the value of Rs. 11,909/- or near about, at the time of the institution of the suit, then the learned Munsiff certainly has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit. As the valuation of the suit property in dispute directly affects the jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain and decide the suit, the revision application is maintainable. It is of course true that if the dispute would have been only one relating to the payment of proper court fee without any relation to the question of jurisdiction of the court before which the suit was instituted, then the matter would have been of purely fiscal nature and the revision application behalf of the defendant would not have been entertained by this court.

4. Section 29 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act provides that in a suit for possession of immovable property, D'not otherwise provided for, the court fees shall be computed on the market value of the property, subject to a minimum fee of rupees twenty. Section 7 of the aforesaid Act provides the method of determination of market value and sub-section (1) thereof lays down that the market value shall be determined as on the date of the presentation of the plaint. I have gone through the evidence of both the parties which has been recorded by the trial court, it respect of the question of market value of the house property in dispute in the suit, on or about the date of the institution thereof' the trial court held that the evidence produced by the defendants is not convincing to hold that the suit property is worth none than Rs. 2000/- and he neither relied upon the evidence led by the plaintiff nor on the evidence led by the defendant applicant, but went on to make his own surmises about the valuation of the suit property on the basis that the house was a very old one and was partly constructed in sand and partly in lime. There may be sufficient reason for not relying upon the testimony of the other witnesses prod