The valuation fixed for court-fee must necessarily become the value for the purpose of jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act.

PATRA, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs in O. S. No. 41 of 1964 in the file of the Subordinate Judge cuttack have come up in Revision against thp order of the learned Subordinate judge dated 30-11-65 rejecting the plaintiff's prayer for amending of the plaint and directing them to pay court fee on the amount of Rs 4,816-00.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 as marfatdars of the deity plaintiff No. 5 brought the suit alleging that the defendants without having any manner of right to the suit scheduled properties valued at Rs. 4816-00 were threatening to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession over the same and praying that they may be restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff? possession over the disputed properties The suit was valued at Rs. 100-00 for the purpose of court fee under Section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court Fees Act but for the purpose of jurisdiction it was valued at Rs. 4816-00. Accordingly ad valorem court fees on Rs. 100-00 were paid on the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge after persusing the stamp report in the case directed the plaintiffs by his order dated 23-9-65 to pay court fee on Rs. 4816-00 at which amount the suit was valued for the purpose of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs thereupon filed an application for amendment of the plaint by substituting Rs. 100-00 for Rs. 4816-00 as the value for purpose of jurisdiction also. The learned Subordinate Judge by his order under revision has rejected the prayer.

( 3 ) THE suit being one to obtain injunction the relevant section applicable for payment of court fees is Section 7 (iv) (d) which provides that ad valorem court fee has to be paid on the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. It is not disputed that the relief sought has to be valued by the plaintiffs and the valuation of the property in respect of which the relief is sought is not material for the purpose. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act runs as follows:

"where in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act, 1870, section 7, paragraphs v, vi, and ix, and paragraph x. Clause (d) court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. "

Under S 8 therefore whatever value is fixed for court-fee must necessarily become the value for the purpose of jurisdiction. Even in a suit for injunction the plaintiff has to pay court fee on the ad valorem basis But he has the discretion to fix the value for purpose of paying court-fee. Once he fixed the amount for the purpose of paying the court fee, that becomes the valuation for jurisdiction also under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. It is not right to say that the valuation fixed for jurisdiction becomes the valuation for purpose of court fee. It is just the reverse: air 1959 Mys 167. A. K Loganatham v. Channarayappa. A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 Their Lordships observed as follows:

"the effect of the provisions of Section 8 is to make the value of the purpose of jurisdiction dependent upon the value as determinable for computation of court-fees. The computation of court-fees in suits falling under Section 7 (iv) of the Court-fees Act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court-fees, and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases; but it is the value for court-fees stated by the plaintiff that is of primary importance. It is from this value that the value for jurisdiction must be determined. The result is that it is the amount at which the plaintiff has valued the relief sought for the purposes of court-fees that determinies the value for jurisdiction in the sui