JUDGMENT

S.N. Singh, J. - The above First Appeal From Order and Civil Revision raise the same question of law and have come before us on a reference by a learned Single Judge. The point involved is as to how the suit in each case should be valued for the purposes of jurisdiction.

2. First Appeal From Order arises out of suit No. 371 of 1962 instituted in the Court of Munsif, Bulandshahr. In this suit the plaintiff claimed that defendant should be restrained from constructing any brick kiln in the plot specified at the foot of the plaint. This relief was sought on the allegation that the plaintiff's certain bhumidhari plots over which there stood a grove would be affected by the running of the brick kiln. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 100-, 30 times of the annual land revenue of Rs. 6.68P. payable for the bhumidhari land in dispute. He further valued the suit at Rs. 200/- for the purposes of court fee in terms of Section 7 (1V-B) (b) of the Court Fees Act.

3. This suit was contested by the defendant, inter alia, on the ground that it has been improperly valued. It was asserted in the written statement that the property affected was garden and that the market value of the garden and not the value of the land should be the value of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction. The Munsif on the pleadings of the parties framed necessary issues including the one about the under valuation of the suit. He decided the issue about valuation in favour of the plaintiff. He also decided other issues in plaintiff's favour. Consequently he decreed the plaintiff's suit for injunction as prayed.

4. An appeal was preferred against this decision of the Munsif. The lower appellate court took up the question of valuation first and came to the conclusion that the suit was under valued. According to the learned Civil Judge the land did not include the trees and the grove. The grove and the land should have been separately valued. He concluded that the valuation of the suit if so valued would exceed Rs. 5,000/, Having arrived at this conclusion the learned Civil Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court with a direction to readmit it to its original number and then return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court. First Appeal From Order No. 277 of 1964 has been filed against the above decision of the Civil Judge.

5. Civil Revision arises out of Suit No. 155 of 1965 instituted in the Court of Munsif Hawaii, Meerut. This is a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from running a brick kiln within a mile from the plaintiff's orchards specified in the plaint on the allegation that the running of the brick kiln would be harmful and-injurious to the plaint-life and would cause substantial injury to the orchard. The plaintiff mentioned the orchards in schedules 'A' to 'C' of his plaint. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 1,000/- alleging it to be the value of the right affected and paid court fees at one-fifth of this valuation.

6. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the suit was under-valued and the court fee paid was insufficient. The Munsif framed preliminary issues on the question of valuation and sufficiency of the court fees. It appears that when these issues were taken up for consideration the plaintiff sought permission to amend the plaint by valuing the suit on the basis of the annual land revenue payable for the land in dispute. This was refused. The learned Munsif thereafter decided the question of valuation fog the purposes of jurisdiction and came to the conclusion that the suit was undervalued and according to him the proper value would be more than Rs. 5,000/-. He held that the market value of the grove should be the value of the land and the market value of the trees. Accordingly he ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the prop