JUDGMENT B. N. Jha, J. This application by defendants is directed against the order of the Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh, passed in partition suit no. 372 of 1964 on May 1, 1967, deciding the question of jurisdiction in favour of the plaintiffs.- 2. It appears that the plaintiffs have brought partition suit no. 372 of 1964 in the court of Munsif, Hazaribagh, for partition of the lands purchased by them from Mossammat Bandhani, widow of Hardeyal Mahton, by a registered sale deed dated September 14, 1961, for a sum of Rs. 600/. Thereafter, they have filed the present suit on April 17, 1964, for partition of their land from the other co-sharers. Lands of Khata Nos. 5 and 10 of village Tetariadhi, Police Station Jainagar, District Hazaribagh, are the subject-matter of partition. The lands were recorded in the names of different co-sharers of Hardeyal Mahton and Tilwa Mahton. The names of Hardeyal Mahton and Tilwa were recorded in respect of 1/3rd shares of those lands. The total area is 28 Bighas and odd Kathas. For the purpose of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs 600/-. The defendants contended that the valuation of the properties is more than Rs 5,000/- and as such, the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The case was placed for hearing before the Additional Munsif, who on a careful consideration of the facts on record and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that the valuation of the land claimed by the plaintiffs i. e. valuation of the land 4.33 1/3 acres is Rs. 600/-and as such the court had jurisdiction to decide the case. 3. Learned Counsel for the defendant petitioners contended before me that the suit is a suit for partition pure and simple and as such the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction should be the valuation of the total area of land which is 28.50 acres, and as such the learned Munsif is wrong in holding that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction should be the valuation of 4.33 1/3 acres of land claimed by the plaintiffs in the partition suit. In support of his case, he has relied on a decision of this Court in (1) Ranjit Sahi and others V. Maulavi Zasim and others (A. I. R. 1923 Patna 342), where it was held that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction in a suit for partition pure and simple should be the valuation of the entire properties in suit. Hence, according to learned Counsel, in this case also the court below should have determined the valuation of the entire land which is the subject matter of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction. No doubt, it is true that in a suit for partition pure and simple where there is no dispute regarding the title or the share of the plaintiffs the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction should be the valuation of the entire properties. But where there is a dispute with regard to the title or share of the plaintiffs which requires determination by the Court, the valuation for the purpose of of jurisdiction should be the valuation of the interest claimed by the plaintiffs. Partition suit could be classified under two categories: (1) When the suit is for partition pure and simple, where there is no dispute with regard to the title and share of the plaintiffs and (2) suit for partition in which the title and share of the plaintiffs are in dispute i. e. in which a partition could be effected only after the determination of the interest of the plaintiffs. In the former case, the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction is the valuation of the entire properties and in the latter, valuation of the interest of the plaintiffs will determine the jurisdiction of the Court. This view of mine is fully supported by the decisions of this Court in the case of (2) Deoki Singh V. Harihar Shah and another (A. I. R. 1921 Patna 78) and (3) Bhairab Chandra Rai V. Sat Narain Sarkar and others (A. I. R. 1953 Patna 342) wherein it was held that the valuation of the plaintiff's share in the property was the basis for the determination of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has itself pointed out the distinction between the two classes of partition suits. The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner has itself pointed out the distinction between the two classes of partition suits. It was pointed out in that case that there is a distinction between suits for partition pure and simple where the plaintiff is in joint possession of his share and there is no dispute as to his title or share, and suits where the plaintiff seeks for an adjudication of his title or extent of share and for partition after such adjudication. In the latter case, it is the value of the plaintiff's share which will determine the jurisdiction of the Court and not the value of the entire property." The decision of (1) Ranjit Sahi's case (A. I. R 1923 Patna 342) falls in the former class of cases where there was no dispute as to the title of the plaintiff who was in joint possession wit h other co-sharer, whereas decisions of (2) Deoki Singh's case (A. I. R. 1921 Patna 78) and (3) Bhairab Chandra Rai's case (A. I. R.1953 Patna 342) fall within second class of cases where the interest of the plaintiff was in dispute. 4. Therefore, in order to determine whether the present case falls in the first category or in the second category, the plaint of the suit has got to be examined. No doubt, it is true that the plaint is cast in the form of a suit for partition pure and simple, but from reading the plaint as a whole, it does not appear to be so. It was pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of (4) I. L. Janakirama Iyer and others V. P. M. Nilakanta Iyer and others (A. I. R 1962 Supreme Court 633) that in construing the plaint the Court must have regard to all the relevant allegations made in the plaint and must look at the substance of the matter and not its form. It was also pointed out by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of (5) Mt. Pupia V. Bhatu Mahton and others [A. I. R (31) 1944 Patna 17], whether the question arose in connection with the court fee matter whether the suit fell in the category of Section 7 (iv) (c) or Sch. It was also pointed out by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of (5) Mt. Pupia V. Bhatu Mahton and others [A. I. R (31) 1944 Patna 17], whether the question arose in connection with the court fee matter whether the suit fell in the category of Section 7 (iv) (c) or Sch. 1, Art. 1, of the Court Fees Act (1870) as follows: "But the dexterity of the person drawing up the pleadings avoiding the use of certain words in the plaint, which would make the relief a consequential one, should not determine the amount of court fee payable on the plaint. The court fee is dependent or not on the form of the pleadings, but on the real substance of the relief claimed". In the present suit the plaintiffs have stated in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the plaint as follows: (13) That in the year 1963 plaintiffs grew paddy over Schedule 'C' lands when the defendants 1, 4 and 5 wanted not to allow the plaintiffs to grow crops upon which proceedings u/s 144 Cr. P. C. and 145 Cr. P. C. were drawn up with respect to Schedule ‘C’ lands only but later on dropped for vagueness of the disputed lands on 16-12-63. (14) That after the said proceedings U/s 144/145 Cr. P. C. the said defendants on 16-12-63 and subsequently the other defendants openly gave out that they would not partition the share of the plaintiffs acquired by purchases, and so it has become necessary to file this suit for carving out a separate takhta for the plaintiffs with respect to Schedule 'C’ lands.", 5. The allegations in the plaint clearly show that the resistance of the other co-sharers in the enjoyment of the properties necessitated the filing of the present suit for partition. The other co-sharers were disputing the claim of the purchaser plaintiffs with regard to the lands purchased by them. Hence, the plaintiffs have brought the suit in effect for partition of their interest in the properties and for delivery of possession of their takhta to them, which follows the final decree in a partition suit. The other co-sharers were disputing the claim of the purchaser plaintiffs with regard to the lands purchased by them. Hence, the plaintiffs have brought the suit in effect for partition of their interest in the properties and for delivery of possession of their takhta to them, which follows the final decree in a partition suit. Therefore, though, not in so many words, the plaintiffs admit that their interest in the properties is disputed by other co-sharers, but reading the plaint as a whole, the plaintiffs seek an adjudication with regard to the title of the lands purchased by them and thereafter want a partition of those land. Hence, the present suit falls in the category of second class where the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction is the valuation of the interest in the property claimed by the plaintiff. Therefore, in my opinion, decision of the learned Additional Munsif is right that Rs. 600/-is the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction, but the court below will examine the question of court fee afresh in the light of the aforesaid decisions and others on the point. 6. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the application and, accordingly, it is dismissed, but without costs, as there is no appearance by the other side. Appeal dismissed.