JUDGMENT

S.N. Dwivedi, J. - This revision comes to us on a reference by a learned single Judge. The applicants are the Vaish College Society, Shamli, the Executive committee of the said college and one Shri Salek Chand. The contesting opposite party is one Shri Lakshmi Narain. He instituted a suit against the applicants with the allegations that he was the duly appointed Principal of the Vaish Degree College, Shamli, and that the applicants were illegitimately trying to interfere with his acting as such. The suit was instituted in the court of the Munsif at Kairana. He claimed the following reliefs in the plaint: (1) The applicants should be restrained by a permanent injunction from interfering with the discharge of his duties as Principal of the College; (2) from acting on the resolutions dated March 12 and 29, 1967, terminating his service until they are approved by the Vice-Chancellor of the Meerut University; and (3) from appointing any one to perform the functions and duties of the Principal of the College. He also claimed another relief against the 4th defendant in his suit to the effect that the said defendant be restrained by a permanent injunction from acting as Principal of the College during the tenure of the plaintiff. For purposes of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court he valued the first set of reliefs at Rs. 1,000/- and the second set of relief also at Rs. 1,000/-.

2. In their written statement the applicants alleged that the suit was under-valued, and that when properly valued, it should be instituted in the court of the civil judge. The Munsif framed a preliminary issue regarding the correct valuation of the suit and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. The issue was heard as a preliminary issue and decided against the applicants. Hence this revision.

3. As before the Munsif, so here also it has been strenuously urged before us that the correct valuation of the suit is muds more than Rs. 5,000/, The argument has been developed in this manner: On account of the reliefs claimed in the plaint, the case is covered by Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act as amended in this State. Accordingly the valuation for purposes of the pecuniary jurisdiction should be the same as the valuation for purposes of paying court fees as provided for in Section 7 (iv-B) (b) of the Court Fees Act as amended in this State. According to the rules of the Institution, the Principal is entitled to keep supervision over the immovable properties of the College and certain funds. Admittedly, the value of the said properties is more than Rs. 10,000/-. The reliefs sought in the plaint involve or affect those properties. So the valuation for purposes of the pecuniary jurisdiction should be the admitted valuation of the said properties.

4. The Munsif did not accept this argument. We think he is right.

5. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act, as amended in this State, provides that suits mentioned in Section 7 (iv-B)., Court Fees Act, shall be valued for purposes of jurisdiction "at the market value of the property involved in or affected by or the title to which is affected by the relief sought, or at the amount involved in or affected by or the title to which is affected by the relief sought." Section 7 (iv-B) (b) provides that the court fees payable in suits to obtain an injunction shall be according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The first proviso and the second Explanation to the section are material for our purpose. The first proviso prescribes that the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint shall not be less than 115th of the market value of the property "involved in or affected by the relief sought" or Rs. 200/- whichever is greater. Explanation 2 provides that in case of a suit to obtain an injunction, the property which is affected by the relief sought "shall be deemed to be the property involved in or affected by the relief sought within the meaning of the proviso." Section 4