JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - Defendants 1 to 3 are the Petitioners. The Plaintiff-opposite party filed Title, Suit No. 28 of 1959 in the Court of the Munsif, Bhadrak, for partition of her one-fourth share in the disputed property. The Petitioners contested the suit and amongst other pleas said that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the valuation of the suit would be more than Rs. 4000/-. The learned Munsif held that the total valuation of the Plaintiff's share is Rs. 1973. 50 nP. and the total valuation of the entire sixteen annas share would Rs. 7794.00 and that the Munsif of Bhadrak has jurisdiction to try the suit as in the facts of this case the value of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction would be the value of the Plaintiff's share in the disputed properties. The Munsif's court at Bhadrak has jurisdiction up to Rs. 4000/- and the Plaintiff's share being valued at less than Rs. 2000/-, the court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Munsif, therefore, decided the issue on jurisdiction in favour of the Plaintiff-opposite party. 2. Mr. A.S. Khan, for the Petitioners, does not challenge the finding of the learned Munsif as to the valuation of the Plaintiff's share. He however contends that the suit being one for partition, the value of the entire disputed properties would determine the jurisdiction of the Court. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Khan it is necessary to examine the case set up by the Plaintiff in the plaint. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, the Plaintiff avers that the Defendants' denied title of the Plaintiff in the disputed lands and it was therefore incumbent upon the Plaintiff to get her title adjudicated and obtain possession of the land after partition by metes and bound. In paragraph 14 of the plaint, she also prayed that her possession be confirmed after declaration of her title. She accordingly paid and valorem court fee on the valuation of her share as determined by her. 3. On the pleadings referred to above the learned Munsif took the correct view that the value of the Plaintiff's share in the disputed lands would determine the jurisdiction of the Court. She accordingly paid and valorem court fee on the valuation of her share as determined by her. 3. On the pleadings referred to above the learned Munsif took the correct view that the value of the Plaintiff's share in the disputed lands would determine the jurisdiction of the Court. Law is well settled that where there is dispute over the Plaintiff's share and the Plaintiff seeks adjudication of his title and for partition after such adjudication, it is the value of the Plaintiff's share which wilt determine the jurisdiction of the Court an not the value of the entire property Bhairab Chandra Rai Vs. Sat Narain Sarkar and Others, . 4. There is no merit in this revision which is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 32/- (Rupees thirty two.) Final Result : Dismissed