Judgment :- 1. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration of title and possession in respect of certain properties situated in the Varanattukara Pakathi in Neyyattinkara Taluk and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their enjoyment thereof. They valued their jenmom right at Rs. 300/-and the annual income of the properties at Rs. 30/- per year. For the purpose of court fee the valuation was put at Rs. 300/- under S.25(4) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 10 of 1960. Objection was raised regarding the value for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee. A commission was taken. The Commissioner reported that the market value of the suit properties will be about Rs. 8004.90. An issue was raised regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. The Court, after considering the Commissioner's report, held that the market value of the property was a little over Rs. 7,000/-. and, therefore, it was not maintainable before the Munsiff. It is this order that is challenged in this revision petition. 2. The petitioner, does not contend that the value fixed by the Commissioner is not acceptable. The argument is that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction should be taken at one-half of the market value. Reference is made to S.25(b) of the Court Fees Act. Thereunder, in a suit for a declaratory decree where the prayer is for a declaration and for consequential injunction and the relief sought is with reference to any immovable property, court fee should be computed at one-half of the market value of the property or at Rs. 300/-, whichever is higher. In the instant case, according to the petitioner, if the market value of the property is to be fixed at the figure mentioned by the Commissioner, the value of the suit for the purpose of court fee being one-half the market value, is less than Rs. 5000/-, and the suit is maintainable in the Munsiff's Court. The argument is that the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is the same as the value for the purpose of court fee, irrespective of the market value. Therefore, even assuming that the market value is something more than Rs. 5,000/-, one-half of that value alone need be taken for the purpose of arriving at the valuation of the suit. The argument is that the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is the same as the value for the purpose of court fee, irrespective of the market value. Therefore, even assuming that the market value is something more than Rs. 5,000/-, one-half of that value alone need be taken for the purpose of arriving at the valuation of the suit. 3.Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Kalu v. Krishnan Nair, 1969 KLJ. 599. A similar question arose in that case. A suit was filed before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Trivandrum, which the plaintiffs valued for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 6,000/- and for the purpose of court fee, under S.25(b) of the Court Fees Act, at one-half of that amount. Objection was raised that the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction should be the same as that for the purpose of court fee, and, therefore, since the value for the purpose of court fee was only Rs. 3,000/- the suit was maintainable before the Subordinate Judge. The objection was over-ruled by the trial court. Krishna Iyer J., as he then was, upheld the objection, and held that the suit, as framed, should have been filed before the Munsiff. There is a detailed discussion of the relevant provisions of the Court Fees Act and the case law on the point. The above decision was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Clement v. Xavier, 1970 KLT. 451. 4. The law relating to pecuniary jurisdiction of a Civil Court is contained in S.6 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as also in S.53 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. S.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure states, that in so far as it is otherwise expressly provided no court should entertain a suit, the amount or value of the subject matter of which exceeds the pecuniary limits of its ordinary jurisdiction. Under S.15 of the Code, every. suit should be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, suits are classified into different categories for purposes of court fee and for determining the jurisdiction of courts. Under S.15 of the Code, every. suit should be instituted in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it. Under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, suits are classified into different categories for purposes of court fee and for determining the jurisdiction of courts. S.53 (1) of the Act states, that suits for which no specific mode of valuation for purposes of jurisdiction is made in the Act or in any other law, the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same as that for the purpose of court fee. Under S.53 (2), in a suit where the court fee payable is at a fixed rate, at the value for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of courts shall be the market value and where it is not possible to estimate it at money value, such amount as the plainif shall state in the plaint. 5. Though a suit may involve immovable property, the subject matter of the suit need not in all cases be the whole property, but particular rights therein. It is now fairly established that for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction it is the subject matter of the suit that should be taken into account. There may be instances where the value of the subject matter of the suit and the value of the property involved are one and the same. In such cases the valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction unless otherwise provided would be the value of the property. There are cases where specific provision is made in the Act regarding the value of the property for the purpose of jurisdiction. There are other cases where there is no specific provision in the Code regarding the mode of valuation. In such cases, in view of S.53(1), the value for the purpose of computing court fee and the value for the purpose of jurisdiction should be one and the same. There are yet other cases where irrespective of the value of the subject matter a fixed court fee is fixed under the Act. A suit for partition may fall under this category. In such cases, under S.53(2), the value for the purpose of jurisdiction should ordinarily be the market value of the property. There are yet other cases where irrespective of the value of the subject matter a fixed court fee is fixed under the Act. A suit for partition may fall under this category. In such cases, under S.53(2), the value for the purpose of jurisdiction should ordinarily be the market value of the property. In cases where it is not possible to estimate the market value at a money value the plaintiff is given the liberty to state the money value of the relief in the plaint, and court fee should be paid on such money value. 6. There is no specific provision in the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act as to the mode of valuation, for purposes of jurisdiction, in respect of suits for declaration of title and injunction, and, therefore, S.53(1), which says, that the value for the purpose of court fee and that for the purpose of jurisdiction should be one and the same, has application. Under S.25(b), the value for the purpose of court fee in a case where the property has market value is one-half the market value or Rs. 300/- whichever is higher. In the instant case, the value for the purpose of court fee has been found to be one-half of the market value. Therefore, the market value of the property having been fixed as a little over Rs 7,000/- the value for the purpose of court fee is a little over Rs. 3,500/-. This value should be adopted for the purpose of jurisdiction. The trial court did not advert to the above aspects while holding that the value for the purpose of jurisdiction is a little over Rs. 7,000/-. The correct position is that for the purpose of jurisdiction it is a little over Rs. 3,500/-, and therefore, the suit is maintainable before the Munsiff's Court. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed. The parties will bear their respective costs.