ORDER
S.P. Khare, J.
1. This is a revision by th6 defendants against order dated 3-2-2001 of the First Civil Judge Class-I, Umaria in Civil Suit No. 97-A of 2000 by which it has been held that the valuation of the suit for purposes of the Court-fee and pecuniary jurisdiction is proper.
2. The plaintiffs case is that defendant No. 1 Ram Prasad Agrawal purchased 16 ft. x 40 ft. of land from him for Rs. 25,000/-. He took him for execution and registration of the sale-deed and then played fraud upon him. According to the plaintiff he has been defrauded on two counts. Firstly, the land which has been included in the registered sale-deed dated 28-9-1999 exceeds the area which was agreed to be sold and secondly, the amount of consideration shown in the sale-deed is Rs. 50,000/- whereas he has been paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- only. He claims that he is in possession of the land in dispute. He has claimed the relief of declaration that the sale-deed is the product of fraud and misrepresentation and he has also claimed the relief that the defendant No. 1 be restrained from interfering with the possession of the , plaintiff on the land in dispute.
3. It is well settled that the question of Court-fee must be considered in the light of the allegations made in the plaint and its decision cannot be influenced either by the pleas in the written statement or by final decision of the suit on merits. This principle was laid down by the Supreme Court long back in Sathappa v. Ramanathan, AIR 1958 SC 245, and has been recently referred to by the Full Bench of this Court in Subhash Chand v. MPEB, 2000(4) M.P.H.T. 318 = 2000(3) MPLJ 522.
4. The present case is covered by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. The plaintiff has claimed the relief of declaration and the consequential relief of injunction. Therefore, ad valorem Court-fee as per Section 7(iv)(c) is payable. The question is what should be the proper valuation. There is a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Badrilal v. State of M.P., AIR 1964 MP 9, which must be followed. It has been held in this case that while the plaintiff is at liberty to value the relief claimed in suits governed by the various clauses of Section 7(iv)including those for a declaration with the consequential relief of injunction, he cannot be allowed to put an arbitrary value and if he does so and the Court considers that it is too low or unreasonable in that it bears no relation to the right litigated, it may require him to correct the valuation.
5. In the present case the plaintiff is not challenging the receipt of Rs. 25,000/- and the sale of land measuring 16 ft. x 40 ft. He is challenging the receipt of remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/-. In the sale-deed the amount of consideration which has been shown is Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, the plaintiff wants to be relieved of the excess value shown in the sale-deed. In this view of the matter, the valuation made by him is proper. The order of the Trial Court holding that the valuation of the suit for purposes of Court-fee and pecuniary jurisdiction is proper, cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity.
6. The revision is dismissed.