V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) IN this revision the only contention urged is that for the purpose of jurisdiction the Civil Judge Junior Division Chanasma has valued the suit claim at Rs. 8 0 and odd on the allegation of the plaintiff that he is entitled to claim one-half share and has therefore held that the Civil Judge Junior Division had jurisdiction. It is contended that the Junior Division Judge has no jurisdiction but only the Senior Division Judge because the suit half share claimed by the plaintiff must have been valued at such higher amount. The property in which half share is claimed consists of land houses and Wada. The dispute in revision relates only to the valuation of the land. On this point the learned Judge has observed in para 5 of his judgment as follows:for the purpose of all the three preliminary issuses it is necessary to find out and determine the market value of the suit properties. For the purpose of the agricultural lands sec. 6 (5) (a) of the Bombay Court Fees Act will apply. The total assessment is Rs. 106-82. P. which is multiplied by 121/1/2 times which comes to Rs. 1335-25 P. on which the plaintiff has to pay the Court-fee stamp on his 1/2 share. But by applying sec. 6 (v) (a) of the Bombay Court tees Act the Judge is not determining the value of the property. That section deals with only valuation for the purpose of Court-fees. It is true that in certain type of suits the valuation for the purpose of Court-fees is the same as the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction vide sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act which reads as follows:where in suits other than those referred to in clause (d) of paragraph (iv) paragraphs (v) (vi) (vii) and (x) and clause (d) of paragraph (xi) in sec. 6 of the bombay Court-fees Act 1959 Court-fees are payable ad valorem under the Bombay Court-fees Act 1959 the value as determinable for the computation of Court-fees and the value for the purposes of jurisdiction shall be the samebut the suit in question being a suit for partition falls under sec. 6 (vii) of the Court-fees Act for the purpose of Court-fees. 6 (vii) of the Court-fees Act for the purpose of Court-fees. Clause (vii) deals with the valuation for the purpose of ascertaining Court-fees and not for the purpose of ascertaining the value for the purpose of jurisdiction. ( 2 ) SEC. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act deals with suits other than those of the types mentioned in that section and the suit for partition is one of the types mentioned in that section. Therefore although sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act provides that the valuation for the purpose of court-fees shall be the same as valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction in certain suits that section does not apply to the present suit because that section applies to suits other than those of the types which include the type of the present suit. ( 3 ) SEC. 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act so far as relevant reads as under:the jurisdiction of a Civil Judge (junior Division) extends to all original suits and proceedings of a civil nature wherein the subject matter does not exceed the amount or value ten thousand rupees. Therefore whether the jurisdiction belongs to the Junior Division Judge or Senior Division Judge depends on the valuation of the subject matter Unless there is a rule as in sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act the valuation of the subject matter for the purpose of sec. 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act cannot be taken to be the same as the valuation for the purpose of court-fees contained in the Court-fees Act. In view of sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act the valuation for the purpose of court-fees would be the same as valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction in certain types of suits. But the present would not fall under sec. 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. The learned Judge was therefore wrong in taking the valuation for the purpose of court-fees to be the valuation of the subject matter for the purpose of sec. 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act. The Suits Valuation Act provides in the preamble that the Act prescribes the mode of valuing certain suits for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts with respect thereto. It only deals with the valuation of certain suits and not with valuation of all types of suits. 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act. The Suits Valuation Act provides in the preamble that the Act prescribes the mode of valuing certain suits for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of Courts with respect thereto. It only deals with the valuation of certain suits and not with valuation of all types of suits. The valuation of a suit not falling under the Suits Valuation Act must depend on general principles having regard to sec. 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act. ( 4 ) WHEN a mistake has been made either on fact or in law in respect of jurisdictional fact sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code will be attracted because the fact decided is a jurisdictional fact. Therefore the learned Judge is directed to decide the valuation of the subject matter of the suit as Provided in-sec. 24 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act and then decide the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the determination for the purpose of court-fees is correct. Order accordingly. .