RAM LABHAYA J.: This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment and decree of this Court in F. A. 17/49, dated 22nd June, 1953 by which the decree of the trial Court was reversed and plaintiffs granted a decree declaring their title to the property in suit and also tor its possession. (2) The defendant-petitioners seek leave under S. 110, Civil P. C., read with Art. 133 (1), Con­stitution of India. Their case is that the decree of this Court varied the decree of the court below. The appellate decree is not one of affirmance. The-value of the subject-matter in suit in the court of the first instance and also on appeal exceeds Rs. 20,000/-, The claim is that they are entitled to appeal as of right. (3) The learned counsel for the opposite parties disputed the claim that the value of the subject-matter exceeded Rs. 20,000/- in the court of the first instance and on appeal. He also argued that even if the case satisfied the requirements of law in regard to valuation, the defendants were now estopped from urging that the value of the subject-matter was Rs. 20,000/- or upwards in view of their conduct in the litigation culminating in the decree of this court. (4) The case came up for hearing first on 29-4-1954. It was then ordered that the market value of the property in dispute be ascertained. The plea of estoppel raised was left for consideration after the ascertainment of the value of the subject-matter. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the Subordinate Judge, L. A. D. enquir­ed into the matter of the valuation. He has sub­mitted his report. His conclusion is that the value of the subject-matter in dispute at all relevant times viz., in the court of first instance and on appeal would not be less than Rs. 30,000/-. (5) No objections have been put in against this report. We have gone through this report and we find that the finding is supported by evidence which can be easily characterised as very impres­sive. No serious effort has been made to show that the finding is open to any valid objection. We can discover no reason for differing from the con­clusion arrived at by the learned Sub-Judge in the matter of valuation. No serious effort has been made to show that the finding is open to any valid objection. We can discover no reason for differing from the con­clusion arrived at by the learned Sub-Judge in the matter of valuation. We therefore find that the case does fulfil the requirements of S. 110, Civil P. C., read with Art. 133 of the Constitution so far as the valuation of the subject-matter in the court of 1st instance and on appeal is concerned. (6) The next question that arises for considera­tion is whether it is now open to defendant-appel­lants to show that market value of the property exceeds rupees twenty-thousand. The facts bearing on it may be briefly stated. The suit was for a declaration of title and for possession of the pro­perty in dispute. The plaintiffs valued it for pur­poses of court-fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 5,500/-. The suit was dismissed. They appealed and ad­hered to that valuation even in appeal. In their written statement the defendants pointed out that the market value of the property in dispute far exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. No issue was framed and no finding was given by the trial court on this point. It may be said therefore that though the matter was raised in the written statement, there has been no finding on or determination of the question of the market value of the property in dispute. The question is whether in these circum­stances, defendants can be estopped from claiming that the market value of the property which was not ascertained during the course of the litigation, should now be determined in order to see whether they can appeal as of right as they claim. (7) The suit as framed would fall under S. 7 (iv) <(c), Court Fees Act. This clause covers suits for obtaining a declaratory decree or order where con­sequential relief is prayed. Other suits which are covered by this clause are for moveable property where the subject-matter has no market value, to enforce right to a share in property on the ground that it is joint property of the family to obtain an injunction, or for a right to some benefit to arise out of land and for accounts. In all such cases the requirement of Cl. In all such cases the requirement of Cl. 4 is that the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought evidently for the reasons that the suits in this category are such that market value cannot be easily ascertained. On. the other hand, it is the market value which determines the value of the suit for purposes of court-fees in cases covered by Cl. 5. It is for the plaintiff to state the market value. It may be disputed later. But the distinc­tion is obvious. The requirement of Cl. 4 is not that the value of the subject-matter should be the market value of the property. The plaintiff has to value the relief which he claims when a suit under Cl. 4 (c) is for a declaration with consequential relief. There is no statutory obligation on him I to value the suit on the basis of market value of (the property in dispute. In cases falling under this clause, it should be open to both the plaintiff and the defendant to show for purposes of appeal to the Supreme Court that the market value of the property in dispute exceeded Rs. 20,000/- or was such that they could ask for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court even though the suit was valued by the plaintiff at a figure lower than Rs. 20,000/-. The view that I take of the matter receives full support from - 'Radhika Nath v. Midnapore Zamindari Co. Ltd.', AIR 1937 Cal 292 (A), which is the latest decision from the Calcutta High Court referred to in the course of the argument by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. In this case, it was held that "in respect of a suit which is not required to be valued according to the real or market value, the plaintiff is not precluded from showing, for the purposes of an appeal to the Privy Council, that the value of the subject-matter in the court of first instance was Rs. 10,000/- or over, where the question of valuation has not been raised and decided at an earlier stage and where the lower valuation put upon the plaint has not in­volved recourse to a different forum." According to the test laid down in this case, there could be no estoppel against the petitioners (defen­dants). 10,000/- or over, where the question of valuation has not been raised and decided at an earlier stage and where the lower valuation put upon the plaint has not in­volved recourse to a different forum." According to the test laid down in this case, there could be no estoppel against the petitioners (defen­dants). It is clear that the question about valuation though raised was not decided and the valuation put by the plaintiff himself has not involved re­course to any other forum than the one to which the case would have gone if it had been valued at Rs. 20,000/- or upwards. Even if the value put had been higher, the suit would have been tried by the Subordinate Judge and the appeal would have come to this Court. There is no diffi­culty about forum and there has been no determination of the question of the market value of the property in suit. (8) In 'AIR 1937 Cal 292 (A)', the suit was for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also mesae profits. The plaintiff valued the suit at a figure lower than Rs. 10,000/-. The suit was heard by a Subordinate Judge and the appeal came to the High Court. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to show that the value of the subject-matter in the first court was an appealable amount, provided the question had not been decided. In the present case, it is not plaintiffs but the defen­dants who are asking for leave and therefore also for the ascertainment of the market value of the property. If a plaintiff is not estopped by his own valuation in the two courts a defendant could not possibly be estopped from asking if necessary, that the market value of the property be ascertained in order that he should be able to establish his right of appeal to the Supreme Court. If a plaintiff is not estopped by his own valuation in the two courts a defendant could not possibly be estopped from asking if necessary, that the market value of the property be ascertained in order that he should be able to establish his right of appeal to the Supreme Court. It is, how­ever, not necessary to base the decision of the case on this point, for, quite apart from the nature of the suit which may give the parties the right to have the market value of the property deter­mined in cases falling under S. 4 (1) (c), Court Fees Act, after the decision of the case by the High Court, it would be difficult to hold on the facts of this case that the defendants are estopped by reason of their own conduct from asking for an enquiry into the market value' of the property. They did raise the objection to valuation asserting that the market value of the property in suit exceeded rupees twenty thousand. They did not, by any act of omission, mislead the plaintiffs. They point­ed, out in clear term that the market value of the property in suit exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. The plain­tiffs therefore were not induced to go into any wrong court and were not otherwise misled by any act or omission on the part of the defendants. The valuation that plaintiffs adopted w&s of their own choice. The defendants also cannot be said to be approbating and reprobating. They are adhering to their allegation made in the written statement. The market value has admittedly remained undeter­mined. On general principles the defendants (peti­tioners) could not be debarred on the strength of the rule of estoppel from showing that the valuation of the subject-matter was such that they could ap­peal as of right. They have substantiated their claim about the value of the subject-matter which includes the property in suit. The result of the enquiry is in their favour. We have therefore no doubt that they can appeal as of right. The peti­tion is therefore allowed. It shall be certified that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under S. 110, Civil P. C., read with Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution. The petitioners shall re­cover their costs of this proceeding from the op­posite parties. Hearing fee Rs. 75/-. The peti­tion is therefore allowed. It shall be certified that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under S. 110, Civil P. C., read with Art. 133 (1) of the Constitution. The petitioners shall re­cover their costs of this proceeding from the op­posite parties. Hearing fee Rs. 75/-. (9) SARJOO PROSAD C. J. : I agree to the order proposed. Petition allowed.