( 1 ) THIS revision petition was heard by Hon'ble single Judge who by his order dated 23-12-82 felt that there is a conflict of views in two single Bench judgments of this Court with regard to valuation of claim in a suit for declaration for purposes of jurisdiction where the declaration is sought in respect of title of the land which is agricultural land separately assessed to land revenue and the learned Judge, therefore, framed two questions for answer ,and Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted this Bench for answering the two questions. The questions are :-- "1. What shall be the proper valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction in a suit for a declaration of title to the , land separately assessed to land revenue?

( 2 ) WHAT shall be the amount of court-fee payable on such a relief?"

( 3 ) THE non-applicants plaintiffs claim-ed a declaration of title to the suit lands and also sought a relief of perpetual injunction. The suit lands are agricultural holdings assessed to land revenue. The market value of the lands is shown to be Rs. 13,500/- and the plaintiffs have valued the suit claim in these terms :--

"the suit is valued for the relief of injunction, both for the purpose of jurisdiction and court-fee, at Rs. 300/- on which Court fee of Rs. 30/- is paid. The suit is valued for purposes of declaration i. e. relief of declaration, for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 13,500/-, and for purposes of court-fee at Rs. 300/- on which court-fee of Rs. 30/- is being paid. "

The applicants-defendants raised an objection about the valuation in the trial Court and as it was not -accepted, raised the same question before the learned single Judge. The Contention advanced by the petitioners-defendants was that the valuation for jurisdiction in the case of agricultural lands separately assessed to land revenue will be 20 times of the land revenue payable and that according to the petitioners-defendants will come to rupees 832. 40 and not the market value as shown by the plaintiffs. It was also contended that the suit, therefore, will not be within the jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge but will fall within the jurisdiction of Civil Judge Class II.

( 4 ) THE learned single Judge has referred to decisions In Bhagwat Singh v. Nanhibai Civil Revn. No. 421 of 1973, decided on 21st March 1974 and Chhotey lal v. Lachiram Rajak, Civil Revn. No. 313 of 1973, Decided on 30th July, 1974.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for parties contended that for purposes of jurisdiction, Section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act empowers the State Government to frame rules for determining the value of the land for purposes of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in the Court-fees Act, Section 7. paras (v) and (vi) and para (x) Clause (d ). So far as the question raised in this revision petition is concerned, it will be a question falling under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act and not Section 7 (v), (vi) or (x) as the suit in this case is a suit for declaration ,and the question referred to us also precisely talks about that.

( 6 ) SECTION 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act reads:-" (iv) (c ). For a declaratory decree and consequential relief.- To obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed. " And therefore, the question that has arisen is as to what should be the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction in a suit of the nature falling under Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act reads :-"4. Valuation of relief in certain suits relating to and not to exceed the value of the land.-Where a suit mentioned in the Court-fees Act, 1870, Section 7, para (iv) or Schedule II, Article 17, relates to land or an interest in land of which the value has been determined by rules under the last foregoing section, the amount at which for purposes of jurisdiction the relief sought in the suit is valued shall not exceed the value of the land or interest as determined by those rules. " This section provide