Judgment 1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. In the Court below, the plaintiffs had valued the property in suit including mesne profits at Rs. 6,101. The area involved was 111 bighas, 14 kathas and 3 dhurs of which 76 bighas odd was included in Schedule 1 as appertaining to village Salha and 35 bighas odd in Schedule 2 as appertaining to village Hasanpur. The plaintiffs suit was dismissed. An appeal was filed to this Court but it was confined to the 76 bighas odd in village Salha. The decision of the trial Court concerning 35 bighas odd in village Hasanpur was not questioned. This Court reversed the decision of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs concerning 76 bighas odd in village Salha. Against the decision of this Court the defendants have filed the present application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. 2. The valuation given by the plaintiffs, as has already been stated, was Rs. 5,104 including megne profits (Rs. 400) regarding the properties mentioned in Schedules 1 and 2. The defendants in their written statement questioned this valuation asserting that the true valuation of the properties involved was Rs. 25,000. An issue was framed by the trial Court on this point. At the hearing, however, the issue was not pressed. After the decision of this Court, the question of the real valuation of the properties involved in the suit was raised by the defendants, and this Court directed the Court below to hold an enquiry and send a report as to the true valuation of the properties in suit at the time of the institution of the suit as well as its value at the time of the application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. The Subordinate Judge, after holding an enquiry, has reported that the market value of the properties mentioned in Schedules 1 and 3 of the plaint on the date of the suit, namely, 12th September 1940, was Rs. 4,704 and that the market value of these lauds on the date of the proposed appeal to the Federal Court, namely, 20th May 1949, was so far as Schedule 1 is concerned Rs. 35000 and so far as Schedule 2 is concerned Rs. 15,000. 4,704 and that the market value of these lauds on the date of the proposed appeal to the Federal Court, namely, 20th May 1949, was so far as Schedule 1 is concerned Rs. 35000 and so far as Schedule 2 is concerned Rs. 15,000. The Subordinate Judge also gave a finding in pursuance of the directions of this Court on the point as to whether the defendants, appellants to the Federal Court, were entitled to challenge the valuation determined by the learned Subordinate Judge at the original trial. According to his opinion, the defendants, appellants to the Federal Court, were not entitled to challenge the value of the suit land in the Court of the first instance as determined by the learned trial Court. 3. Mr. De on behalf of the defendants challenged in the first instance the report of the Subordinate Judge as to the valuation of the properties in suit. He further contended that the defendants were entitled to challenge the valuation as given by the plaintiffs at the trial and that the principle of approbating and reprobating did not arise. He further contended that even if the valuation as given by the plaintiffs and as found by the Subordinate Judge in his report be accepted, that is to say the true valuation of the lands in suit was below Rs. 10,000, substantial questions of law arise in the case and leave should be granted to appeal to the Federal Court. 4. As to the valuation arrived at by the Subordinate Judge in his report, which he has submitted, we cannot find any good reason for supposing that he had adopted a wrong principle in arriving at his conclusions. The lands in suit were certainly subjected to flood until 1940 and they could not be assessed on the same rates as lands in village Hasanpur. According to the decision of this Court, the change in the situation of the land was a sudden one due to the earthquake of 1934, and the lands which appertained to village Salha before that event came to be joined with the lands of Hasanpur as the result of that violent event. The Sub-ordinate Judge has dealt with the evidence led before him at the time of his enquiry, and it seems to us that he had good grounds for the finding which he has given as to the valuation. The Sub-ordinate Judge has dealt with the evidence led before him at the time of his enquiry, and it seems to us that he had good grounds for the finding which he has given as to the valuation. In proceedings of this kind what is to be looked to is the principle which has been adopted in arriving at the valuation and not the precise particulars in the statements of the various witnesses or the documents. After having heard Mr. De at considerable length, no sufficient ground has been established for expressing an opinion different to that of the Subordinate Judge on the question of valuation and his report is accepted. 5. On the second point, having regard to the view already expressed, it is not necessary to consider the various authorities cited and the arguments raised by Mr. De. It is, however, to be borne in mind that the plaintiffs valuation given in the plaint was not a notional valuation which he might have been compelled to give in order to comply with some statutory provision. It is abundantly clear from the plaint that the value given by the plaintiff was intended by him to be the market value having regard to the quality of the laud and the circumstances indicated in the plaint. That the defendants under, stood this to be so is also clear from the fact that they asserted in their written statement that the real value of the land was not less than Rs. 25,000 and on that pleading a specific issue was framed at the trial. At the hearing, the defendants made no effort to have this issue determined. Such conduct should be regarded as one indicating acquiescence to the plaintiffs valuation given in the plaint. In the written statement, it had been specifically stated that the suit should be dismissed unless the true valuation was given and the requisite court fee was paid thereon. The defendants not having pressed this issue, the suit proceeded on the basis that the properties had been properly valued and no further court-fee was necessary from the plaintiffs. It is on this footing that the trial proceeded, and the defendants must be regarded as having accepted the valuation given by the plaintiffs. The defendants not having pressed this issue, the suit proceeded on the basis that the properties had been properly valued and no further court-fee was necessary from the plaintiffs. It is on this footing that the trial proceeded, and the defendants must be regarded as having accepted the valuation given by the plaintiffs. The question of valuation was again raised by them when this Court decreed the plaintiffs suit reversing the decision of the Court below with respect to the lands mentioned in Schedule 1. As we have already stated, it is not necessary to go into this question in great detail or to express any definite opinion having regard to the fact that the valuation given by the plaintiffs and the valuation found by the Subordinate Judge in his report has been accepted by us. It follows, therefore, from a consideration of these two points raised by Mr. De that the valuation of the properties in suit at the time of the institution of the suit was below Rs. 10,000. 6. As to the third point, we have been through the decision of this Court and we cannot find it possible to say that any substantial question of law arises, The case is undoubtedly an important one where important rights are in question but as we read the judgment of this Court, it would not be possible judicially to say that substantial questions of law arise out of the judgment of this Court. 7. In the net result, the application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court is dismissed with costs : hearing fee two gold mohurs.