Short Note : 1. The applicant instituted civil suit No. 20-A of 1972 against the non-applicants (defendants) for a partition of the suit property claiming 1/24th share in it. The applicant averred that lands described in schedules A and B of the plaint were assessed to land revenue at Rs. 60 and Rs. 5.65 respectively. He, therefore, valued his claim for purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fees under section 7 (vi-a) of the Court fees Act and paid Court-fees at 20 times the land revenue divided by 48, i.e., one half of the value of the applicant's share. 2. The non-applicants denied that the suit lands were separately assessed to land revenue. They contended that the suit was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court and the Court-fees was payable on the market value. 3. The lower Court tried issues No.5, 6 and 8 as preliminary issues. In this revision, we are concerned with the finding on issue No.8 (a) and (b) wherein it held that except Khasra No.61, on other lands, the plaintiff has to pay Court-fees on the market value which will be determined later on. Held: I agree with Tare C.J. that such a question has to be determined in each case as to what would be the best available evidence and there can be no hard and fast rule. In the absence of the best available evidence, it would be open to a party to prove that fact by next best available evidence that may be adduced in this behalf. It is pertinent to mention here that Singh J. specifically held that the entry in the Jamabandi could be relied upon to consider whether the lands were assessed to land revenue or not. In the decision by Tare C.J. the Kishtbandi Khatauni for the year 1970-71 was held to be sufficient to prove whether the lands were assessed to land revenue or not I am inclined to agree with Tare C. J. and Singh J. that the entries in the Jamabandi and Kishtbandi Khntauni could be accepted as proof of the lands being assessed to land revenue or not. 4. On facts also, there are circumstances to establish that the suit lands were separately assessed to land revenue. In schedules A and B attached to the plaint, the applicant mentioned the land revenue of the suit lands at Rs. 60 and Rs.5.65 respectively. 4. On facts also, there are circumstances to establish that the suit lands were separately assessed to land revenue. In schedules A and B attached to the plaint, the applicant mentioned the land revenue of the suit lands at Rs. 60 and Rs.5.65 respectively. On record, there is a Jamabandi (Adhikar Abhilekh) for the year 1970-71 supporting the plaintiff's averments and the schedules. Then, there is also Khasra for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 in which the land revenue is mentioned which supported the applicant's contention. There is also a Kishtbandi Khatauni for the year 1971-72 which supported the applicant's contention. These are the documents produced by the applicant and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, these entries are presumed to be correct. CR No. 35 of 1969 (J), decided on 3-9-1970 by Pandey, J. distinguished. CR No 744 of 1974, decided on 21-7-1975 by Shivdayal, J. CR No. 707 of 1973 decided on 6-9-1974 by C.P. Sen, J. CR No.779 of 1973 decided on 20-12-1973 by Singh, J. CR No. 717 of 1972 decided on 1-5-1973 by Tare C. J. and CR No. 18 of 1975 decided on 10-2-1976 by Bhave, J. relied on. Revision allowed.