JUDGMENT : Narasimham, J. - This revision is against the appellate judgment of the District Judge of Cuttack dismissing an appeal filed by the Petitioner against the judgment, of the Munsif of Cuttack returning the Petitioner's plaint for presentation before a proper Court on the ground that the value of the subject- matter was not less than Rs. 6,000/- and consequently beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction. 2. The Petitioner instituted a suit u/s 77 of the Indian Registration Act for registration of a sale-deed in which the consideration mentioned as Rs. 2,000/-. The property is said to be valuable urban property situated in Cuttack town. The Plaintiff paid fixed court fee under Schedule II, para. 17A of the Court-fee Act but valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 2,000/- and filed it before the learned Munsif. On objection by the opposite party, the learned Munsif beard the evidence adduced by both parties regarding the value of properly and held that it was more than Rs. 6,000/-. 3. The limited question for consideration is whether a suit u/s 77 of the Indian Registration Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to fix his own valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction or else whether the actual value of the subject-matter of the litigation should be the deciding factor. The lower appellate Court while rightly pointing out a conflict in the decisions on the subject, preferred to follow a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported in ILR 31 Mad. 90 and refused to follow a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 97 Indian Cases p. 762 on the ground that the facts were not clear from the official report of the Calcutta decision. I have, however, looked into the decision as reported in 97 I.C. p. 762 and find that the facts are almost identical with the facts of the present case. Doubt less, the reasons for holding that in a suit u/s 77 of the Indian Registration Act the Plaintiff was entitled to put his own valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction, have not been fully set forth in the Calcutta decision; whereas in the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court the reasons for taking a contrary view have been given in full and previous decisions have also been referred to. The Madras decision is of an anterior date, being of the year 1907. But the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court though agreeing with the other Judges, observed that "though he had considerable doubt in the matter" he was not prepared to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the other two Judges. 4. The question is undoubtedly not free from difficulty and neither the provisions of the Court-fee Act nor the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act offer valuable help. In this stage of the law it seems inadvisable to depart from the established practice prevalent in North Orissa at any rate of following the decisions of the Calcutta High Court in the absence of any decisions to the contrary either of the Patna High Court or of this Court. No substantial prejudice is likely to be caused to either party and the question ultimately is one of regulating the practice in the subordinate Courts as regards institution of suite of this class. 5. I would, therefore, prefer to follow the Calcutta decision cited above in preference to the Madras decision. The revision petition is allowed, the orders of the two lower Courts are set aside and the Munsif is directed to register the plaint and dispose of the suit according to Law. In the peculiar circumstances of the case both parties will bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Allowed