JUDGMENT :

BANERJI, J.

In this case the Court of first instance haying held that the suit was not cognizable by that Court directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. This judgment of the Court of first instance having been affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate Court, this application for revision has been made by the, plaintiff on the ground that the Courts below have erred in holding that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to hear the suit and that the Court of first instance has thus failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it by law.

2. The facts are these:— The plaintiff obtained a decree from a Court of Small Causes for a sum amounting to about two hundred rupees. The decree was transferred for execution to the Court of the Munsif of Fatehpur, and certain immovable Property was attached as the property of the judgment-debtor. Thereupon the first defendant, who is the wife of the judgment-debtor, preferred an objection under section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming the property to be hers under a gift made to her by her husband. This application having been allowed, and the property released from attachment, the plaintiff, decree-holder brought the present suit, in the Munsif's Court under section 283 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the establishment of his right to bring the attached property to sale in execution of his decree. The value of the property exceeds Rs. 1,000, but the amount of the decree, as I have said above, is much below Rs. 1,000. The Court of first instance has held that the value of the suit, i, e., of the subject-matter of the suit, is above Rs. 100, and that consequently the suit is not cognizable by the Munsif's Court, That Court and the lower appellate Court have relied upon the ruling of this Court in Dwarka Das v. Kameshar Parshad,[1894] I.L.R., 17 All, 69, Both the Courts below have, in my judgment, misunderstood that ruling.

3. It was held in that case that where the sole question between the parties to the suit is, whether the property attached in execution of a decree is or is not liable to be attached and sold, the value of the suit is the value of the property sought to be sold in execution of the decree, when the amount of decree exceeds the value of the property sought to be sold; and the value of so much of the property sought to be sold as will on sale satisfy the amount sought to be realized by sale of the property sought to be sold, when the value of the property attached exceeds the amount sought to be realized. In the latter case, the amount which is sought to be realized by a sale under the decree, may be taken as the value of that portion of the property the sale of which will be sufficient to satisfy that amount by the sale. It was pointed out in that case that where the judgment-debtor is also a party to the suit and the suit is by the unsuccessful claimant objector for the establishment of his right both against the execution creditor and the judgment-debtor, the value of the suit must be deemed to be the value of the attached property, although the amount of the decree might be smaller than the value of the property, but where the object of the suit is only to establish either the right of the decree-holder, as against the objector, or the right of the objector as against (he decree-holder, the value of the subject-matter, where the amount of the decree is less than the value of the attached property, is the amount of the decree. The reason of this distinction is obvious. In the case of a suit by the objector against the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder, where the objector does not limit his claim to so much of the property as would be sufficient for the realization of the amount of the decree, the judgment of the Court as between the objector and the judgment-debtor who are arrayed on opposite sides, would operate as res-judicata between those persons, but that will not be the case where the execution creditor is the plaintiff a