Knox and Burkitt, JJ.:— The main question for decision in this second appeal is whether the Court of first instance had or had not jurisdiction to try the suit out of which this appeal arose. The suit was one in which the respondents, who were plaintiffs, prayed that a certain deed of adoption might be invalidated, and in their plaint they expressly stated that the value of the relief for the purpose of jurisdiction was Rs. 600. It is contended by the appellants that the property at stake, if this deed of adoption be declared invalid, amounts in value to more than Rs. 5,000, and, relying upon the precedent in. Keshava Sanabhaga v. Lakshmi Narayana, they urged that the Court of first instance had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Up to the present time no rules have in these Provinces been framed for the determination of the value of land or interest in land, suits relating to which would fall under the Court Pees Act, 1870, s. 7, paragraphs 5 and 6 and paragraph 10, clause (d).
This being the case, according to s. 4 of Act No. VII of 1887, the only restriction placed upon valuation by that Act is not in force and does not apply, and we are left without any guide. We are not prepared to follow the precedent just quoted in suits of this kind. We are disposed to hold that it is for a plaintiff to put his own valuation on the relief which he claims. We do not see why we should import into a suit, which only asks for a declaration, that a certain deed is invalid, the consideration that, at some future time, the plaintiff or the defendant may or may not enter into or be entitled to claim some property by virtue of the decree which may be passed in that suit. Independently of this view, we are of opinion that this is a case, which is fully covered by the provisions contained in s. 11 of the Suits Valuation Act of 1887, [380] and if there has been an undervaluation, which we think there has not been, that undervaluation has not pre-judicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits. The first plea taken in appeal fails. The findings of fact by the lower appellate Court are fatal to the fourth plea, and these were the only two pleas argued before us. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.