Short Note : According to the allegations made in the plaint claimed declaration of his right in respect of certain agricultural holding which was separately assessed to land revenue. Along with the relief of declaration, he also claimed the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff valued the claim for declaration of his rights at a figure which was equal to the amount of 20 times of the land revenue, and has paid fixed Court-fees for the said relief of declaration. He had further valued the claim of the permanent, injunction at Rs.200 and paid Court-fees for that relief also. Before this Court, there was no challenge to the valuation of the relief of permanent injunction and payment of fixed Court-fees for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The argument put forth by the defendant was that even when there could be no objection to the payment of fixed Court-fees for the relief claimed, the valuation of the relief of declaration at least for the purposes of jurisdiction should have been on the market value of the agricultural holding and which according to him was Rs.15,000. The contention raised was that the valuation put by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration at a figure which was equal to the amount of 20 times of the land revenue was arbitrary and unreasonable. Reliance was placed on the circumstance that firstly, the suit was not for the relief of possession and despite there being assessment of land revenue in respect of the holding in question, the same was exempted from payment of land revenue by virtue of necessary provisions exempting certain holdings from payment of land revenue. It was also contended that the amended provisions of the Court-fees Act permitting valuation of such holding exempt from payment of land revenue for not separately assessed to land revenue at a flat rate of Rs. 2 per acre were also not applicable because the present suit had been instituted prior to the enforcement of the aforesaid amended provisions. Held: Undisputedly, the present suit was not for the relief of claiming possession. 2 per acre were also not applicable because the present suit had been instituted prior to the enforcement of the aforesaid amended provisions. Held: Undisputedly, the present suit was not for the relief of claiming possession. Had it been so, then, of course, since it was instituted prior to the enforcement of the amended provisions, there would have been some scope for contending that according to the law as in force on the date of suit, the suit holding having been exempted from payment of land revenue the relief of possession should have been valued on the market value and the same would have been the valuation both for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction. In the present case, the question is about the reasonableness of the valuation put by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration. Whenever a plaintiff institutes a suit for declaration of his title to land, the object of the suit in substance is to get his title declared free of the cloud cast by the defendant. No rules have been brought to the notice of this Court as having been framed under the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act prescribing any specific mode of valuation for the relief of declaration. In the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff was entitled to value the relief of declaration according to his valuation of the subject-matter of the suit provided the said valuation was not outrageous. If the plaintiff had adopted the statutory mode of valuation which has been provided for valuation of the claim for possession of the land in cases of agricultural holdings it cannot be said that the same was arbitrary or unreasonable. So far as the relief of declaration is concerned, as stated above it is nothing in sum and substance but the subject matter of removal of the cloud cast by the defendant on the title of the plaintiff and, as such, the plaintiff is the only person who can value the same in the absence of any provisions in the Suits Valuation Act or the rules framed thereunder prescribing any other specific mode of valuation. As already stated above, what has to be seen is that the valuation of the subject matter which is nothing true the cloud cast on the title of the plaintiff should not be arbitrary or outrageous one way or the other. As already stated above, what has to be seen is that the valuation of the subject matter which is nothing true the cloud cast on the title of the plaintiff should not be arbitrary or outrageous one way or the other. The plaintiff valued the same at Rs.200 and paid fixed Court-fees. The trial Court neither acted beyond jurisdiction nor with any material irregularity in accepting that valuation. There is no case of want of good faith or unreasonable attitude on the part of the plaintiff in putting the said valuations of the relief of declaration. 1973 JLJ SN 61 and AIR 1951 Nag. 218=39 MPLC 318 (DB) relied on. Revision dismissed.