Short Note : The plaintiff challenged the sale-deed dated 22-8-1968 executed by non-applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of non-applicant No. 4 on the ground that it is void and ineffective against the plaintiff-applicants. Inter alia, the plaintiff claimed possession of the suit property also vide para 13(b) of the plaint. However, the plaint was valued merely on the basis of the sale-price at Rs. 3,500. The valuation was not on the basis of market value of the property in suit on the date of institution thereof. This valuation was stated to be inadequate and not in accordance with law by the defendant. Held : In view of the relief clause of the plaint as contained in para 13(b), it is a suit for recovery of possession also. In such a suit, valuation of the property on the basis of the market value on the date of the institution of the suit has to be done vide section 7(v)(c) of the Court-fees Act. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be either illegal or without jurisdiction. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant to the effect that construction put by the defendant after purchases cannot be taken into consideration for determining the correct valuation of the suit property, has great force and merits acceptance. Accordingly, when the plaintiff amends the plaint for purchases of putting valuation on the basis of market value of the property at the time of the institution of the suit, thereafter the defendant will be given an opportunity to make consequential amendment but in any case the valuation of the construction made by the defendant after purchase cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of determining the market value of property on the date of the institution of the suit. Revision dismissed.