ORDER

G.C. Mathur, J. - A suit was filed by opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 4 for injunction and possession over certain Bhumidhari land. In the suit, the Plaintiffs challenged certain sale deeds to which some of them were parties. An objection as to the valuation and court fees paid was faised by the Defendants. On the basis of this objection, the following issue was framed:

Whether the suit is undervalued and court-fee paid is insufficient?

It may be stated that the valuation mentioned in the plaint was Rs. 101/- and presumably, court-fee was paid on that amount. The objection of the Defendants was that, since the value of the land sold was Rs. 5,600/- that should be the proper valuation of the suit and the court fee should be, paid on that amount. The trial court held that the proper valuation would be Rs. 4,500/- , the amount for which the land was sold and since its pecuniary jurisdiction was below Rs. 4,500/- , it being the court of the Additional Munsif, it directed the case to be transferred to the court of the Munsif, Mirzipur. Against this order, the Plaintiffs went up in appeal. The Civil and Sessions Judge, Mirzipur, agreed with the trial court that the suit involved cancellation of the sale deeds but he disagreed with it that the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction and for payment of court-fees should be Rs. 4,500/- . He held that a suit for cancellation was covered by Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act and that the court-fee was payable on the valuation of the subject-matter. He further held that the valuation had to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(v-B)(c) of the Act and that the court-fee paid by the Plaintiffs was sufficient. He accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Additional Munsif and sent the case back to him for trial in accordance with Jaw. Against the order of the Civil and Sessions judge, the Defendant has come up in revision.

2. Both the courts below have held that the suit involves cancellation of the sale deeds. This has not been disputed by Learned Counsel for the parties before me. The question, which arises for consideration, is as to what should be the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and what should be the court-fees payable in respect of the relief for cancellation of the sale deeds.

3. So far as the matter of court-fees is concerned, it is covered by Section 7(iv-A) of the Court Fees Act. This section provides that, in suits for or involving cancellation of an instrument securing property having a market value, the court-fee have to be paid according to the value of the subject-matter. In Ram Kumar v. Damodar Das 1949 AWR 67 a Division Bench of this Court held that Section 7(iv-A) cannot be so construed as to give the Plaintiff an alternative either to value the suit on the amount of sale consideration or on the value of the property and that the value refers to the market value of the property. In this view, the sale consideration cannot be taken into account in finding the valuation for purposes of court-fees and the court fee has to be paid on the market value of the property. The explanation by Section 7(iv-A) of the Act provides that

The value of the property', for the purposes of this sub-section, shall be the market-value, which in the case of immovable property shall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with Sub-sections (v), (v-A) or (v-B) as the case may be.

Thus the sale deeds being for land which is immovable property, one has to refer to Sub-sections (v), (v-A) or (v-B) of the Act. In my opinion, it is sub Section (v)(1)(b) which is applicable to the present case. This sub-section provides that, in suits for possession of land where the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid and such revenue is settled but not permanently, the value shall be ten times the revenue so payable. The explanation