( 1 ) THIS application in revision has been referred to a Full Bench in order to secure an authoritative decision on the question whether when determining the valuation of a suit for possession of land, for purposes of jurisdiction it is necessary to take into account the value of garden and building which stand on the land.

( 2 ) THE facts so far as they are necessary for our present purpose are not in dispute. Chaudhary baldep Singh was the owner of the properties mentioned in lists a and b of the plaint. The property in list a consists of 13 bighas 6 biswas pokhta of zamindari land, while the property in list b consists of a house. Chaudhary Baldeo Singh died in 1901 leaving a widow, Srimati parbati. She transferred the land and the house in dispute to the predecessor of the defendants. After her death, the plaintiff Chaudhary Mahabir Singh filed a suit for possession over the land and the house on the ground that he was the nearest reversioner of Chaudhary Baldeo Singh and the transfer made by Srimati Parbati in favour of the defendants predecessor being without consideration and without legal necessity was not binding upon him. He filed the suit in the court of the Munsif whose pecuniary jurisdiction extended to Rs. 5,000. According to him the value of the land and the house taken together was less than Rs. 5,000/- and the suit was therefore entertainable by the Munsif.

( 3 ) THE defendants contested the suit and pleaded inter alia that the suit had been undervalued and, if properly valued, could not have been filed in the Court of the Munsif. They said that they had spent a considerable amount in constructing a well, houses and a garden on the land mentioned in list a, and had also improved the house mentioned in list b. If the value of the buildings and the garden which existed on the land in list a at the time of the suit was taken into consideration, the value of that property alone would be found to be more than Rs. 10,000 -. The suit was therefore not cognizable by the Munsif.

( 4 ) IT was common ground between the parties that the value of the house mentioned in list b along with the site was Rs. 3,621-14-0 and the value of the land mentioned in list a calculated at thirty times of its land revenue was Rs. 945. At the time when this land was sold there were no buildings or garden upon it. It was further not seriously disputed that the defendants had after purchasing the land from Srimati Parbati, spent about Rs. 10,000 in making constructions and planting a garden on it.

( 5 ) THE question of jurisdiction was consi-dered by the learned Munsif as a preliminary issue. The plaintiff contended that he claimed only the land and the house which had originally been sold by Srimati Parbati to the defendants predecessor. He did not claim any interest in the buildings which had been constructed by the defendants or in the garden which they had planted. The properties which he claimed were admittedly worth less than Rs. 5,000. As no relief had been claimed in respect of the buildings or the garden he was not bound to include their value in the valuation of the suit. The suit had, therefore, been properly valued and was triable by the Munsif. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the building and the garden being there on the land their value could not be ignored. The relief claimed by the plaintiff involved or affected them alsof because if the plaintiffs suit was decreed, the defendants would have to part with them. They also contended that in any case in view of Clause (e) of Rule 3 of the U. P. Suits Valuation rules, 1942, at least for purposes of jurisdiction, the market value of the buildings and the garden situated on the land was to be added to the value of the land for determining its value. Had the plaintiff properly valued the suit the value for purposes of jurisdiction would have exceeded Rs. 5,000. The suit was therefore not triable by the Munsif.

( 6 ) THE defendants contention found f