A.C. Sen, J. - (1.) This application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and order dated July 12,1963, passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Alipore, in Misc. Appeal No. 739 of 1962 reversing the order dated July 5, 1962, passed by the learned Munsiff, Fourth Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 583 of 1960. The aforesaid suit, namely Title Suit No. 583 of 1960 in the Court of Fourth Munsif, Alipore, was instituted by the opposite party No. 1 against the Petitioners and the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 in order to challenge the validity of a certain mortgage decree passed on compromise in a suit instituted by the Petitioners. She also challenges in the present suit the validity of the mortgage bond on which the earlier suit instituted by the Petitioners was decreed on the basis of a compromise. In the present suit the opposite party No. 1 has prayed for following relief 's: (a) for a declaration that the mortgage bond dated May 18,1951, and the mortgage decree in Title Suit No. 7 of 1955 of the Fourth Sub -Judge, Alipore Court, are null and void and inoperative against the Plaintiff, (b) for permanent injunction restraining Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from further proceeding with the matter of making the decree final in T.S. No. 7 of 1955 of the Fourth Court of the Sub -Judge at Alipore. (c) for costs of the suit, and (d) for such relief or relief 's as the Court thinks fit and proper. The Plaintiff opposite party No. 1 valued the suit at Rs. 100 under Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. The Petitioners objected to this valuation. The learned Munsif accepted the objection of the Petitioners holding that the suit should have been valued at Rs. 1,50,000 being the amount decreed in the earlier mortgage suit. The learned Munsif, therefore, returned the plaint holding that he had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. The Plaintiff opposite party No. 1 preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Munsif. Appeal succeeded. It is for this reason that the contesting Defendants Petitioners have made the present application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) The only point for consideration is whether the valuation given by the Plaintiff opposite party No. 1 is to be accepted as correct valuation under Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. The lower appellate Court had given the following reason in support of its order accepting the Plaintiff's valuation: The principles laid down in the Full Bench case : (38 C.W.N. 589) were uniformity applied to all latter cases including : 61 C.W.N. 518 referred to in the order, passed by the learned Munsif The position, therefore, is that as rules under Sec. 9 of the Suits Valuation Act have not been framed and the Plaintiff has been under Sec. 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act given option to put his own valuation as there is no standard in the statute for assessing this relief, it is not proper in a case like this to interfere with the valuation given by the Plaintiff. In this suit the Plaintiff prays for getting rid of a decree for Rs. 1,50,000 and not for claiming a decree for the amount. Hence, I fail to. understand why she, should value the suit at Rs. 1,50,000. The value for avoiding and claiming cannot be the same by any stretch of imagination. I, therefore, find that the suit is properly valued and the learned Munsif has jurisdiction to try the suit and the findings of the learned Munsif to the contrary are not sound and liable to be set aside. I fully agree with the view expressed by the lower appellate Court. I, therefore, find no reason. to interfere with the order passed by the lower appellate Court.
(3.) The Rule is, accordingly, discharged. There will be no order for costs.;