The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proper valuation for court-fees and jurisdiction, and the discretionary nature of revisional jurisdiction.

Niyogi, J—This is an application to revise an interlocutory order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Daryapur, passed in civil suit No. 209-A of 1944 on 17th July 1944. By that order the lower Court accepted the valuation for court-fees and jurisdiction as put by the plaintiff and permitted the suit to proceed.

2. One Mahomed Shareef died on 29-3-1948 survived by his three widows named Mt. Binnabi, Mt. Gulabbi and Mt. Bunabi and a son named Mahomed Ibrahim, and a daughter named Mt. Rahimbi. Within a month of the death of Mahomed Shareef, there arose disputes among his heirs which were apparently sought to bi settled On 20-4-1943 by the execution of 4 documents by Mt. Binabi, Mt. Gulabbi and Mahomed Ibrahim as follows: A gift deed in favour of Abdul Jalil (de. fendant 1) comprising two revenue paying fields of the market value of Rs. 6,000. A gift deed in favour of Mahomed Yasin (defendant 4) comprising one field of the market value of Rs. 200. A gift deed in favour of a Musjid (represented by panchas defendants 5 to 10) and comprising one field of the market value of Rs 400. A partition deed of the rest of the property was executed by the two widows and the son whereby it was divided into 2 lots, one of which was allotted to Mahomed Ibrahim, Mt. Bunabi and Mt. Rahimbi jointly and the other to Mt. Binnabi and Mt. Gulabbi jointly. The suit out of which this proceeding arises was instituted by Mahamed Ibrahim for a declaration that the above-mentioned 4 documents were void and inoperative as against him on account of misrepresentation, fraud and undue influence and for a fresh partition and possession of his share of the property left by his father.

3. The suit for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction, was valued as follows: For Court-fees: The fields which were comprised in the three gift deeds were valued on the basis of the land revenue assessed on them, the land revenue Rs. 234; plaintiff's share (9 annas 4 pies) of the land revenue Rs. 136-4-0 x 7 = 1053-8. The relief in regard to partition of the property was valued at Rs. 200. Total for Court-fees Rs. 1253-8-0. For jurisdiction: the suit was valued at Rs. 136-4-0 15 = 2047-8-0 + 200-0-0 = 2247-8-0.

4. In the lower Court the defendant objected to the valuation on the ground that the valuation for Court-fees and jurisdiction should have been on the basis of the market value, and contended, on that view, that the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the lower Court. The lower Court held that the suit was properly valued both for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction on the basis of the land revenue.

5. It is contended in limine that an application for revision does not lie as the lower Court accepted the plaintiff's valuation. The point was debated at some length with citation in Balaji Dumnaji v. Mt. Mukta Bai, 1938 AIR(Nag) 122 Pusaram v. Himmatrao,1943 AIR(Nag) 315, Ramkhelawan Sahu v. Surendra Sahi, 1938 AIR(Pat) 22, Secy. of State v. Raghunathan, 1933 AIR(Mad) 506 and Rabindra Nath v. Girindra Mohan, 1941 AIR(Cal) 518 to show that the view which I had taken in Hiralalsa Ramchandrasa v. Rambhu Brijlal,1946 AIR(Nag) 160 was erroneous. The authorities no doubt make a distinction between an order demanding additional Court-fees and an order accepting the Court-fees paid by the plaintiff while considering the question of the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. But in principle there is really no basis for any such distinction. If refusal of the Court to proceed with the suit unless the plaintiff pays additional Court-fees is regarded as failure to exercise jurisdiction, it may also be said on the other hand that the Court wrongly accepting inadequate Court-fees and permitting the suit to proceed would be wrong assumption of jurisdiction.

6. The controversy is usually raised by the defendant, involving questions of Court-fees-and jurisdiction or Court-fees alone, by saying-that the suit is under-valued. If the Court accepts-the defendant's plea, it calls upon the p