JUDGMENT : C.S.P. SINGH, J. 1. This is a revision by the Defendant. The suit had been filed for declaration that the Plaintiff had not adopted the Defendant, and he was not his adopted son. The suit was valued at Rs. 500/-. Its valuation was based on the valuation of a house in which the Plaintiff alleged to have half share. The Defendant objected to the valuation of the house disclosed in the plaint and alleged inter alia that its valuation was not less than Rs. 4,000/-. and apart from that the Plaintiff has another house in village Bokta, It was contended on behalf of the Defendant that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the valuation of the property involved in the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court. 2. The trial court directed the Court Amin o value the house at Bokta alleged by the Defendant to belong to the Plaintiff. The Amin valued it at Rs. 10,947. 25 P. The Munsif decided the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the Plaintiff, on the view that the property owned by the Plaintiff is only the house disclosed in the plaint, and that the report of the Amin was beyond jurisdiction. Valuation of a suit for purposes of determining as to whether it falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a court is governed by the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and the Suits Valuation Rules. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act as amended in U.P. runs as under: 4. Valuation of relief in certain suits relating to land: Suits mentioned in paragraphs IV (a), LV-A, IV-B, V, V-A, V-B, VI, VI-A VIII & X (d) of Section 7 and Articles 17, 18 and 19 of Schedule II of the Court Fees' Act, 1870, as in force for the time being in the Uttar Pradesh, shall be valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at the market value of the property involved in or affected by, or the title to which is affected by the relief sought, or of the amount involved in or affected by or the title to which is affected by the relief sought, and such value shall in the case of land be deemed to be the value as determinable in accordance with the rules framed under Section 3. Rule 3(e) of the Rules runs as under: (e) where there are also buildings or a garden on the land the aggregate of the value of the land as determined in accordance with these rules plus the market value of such buildings or garden situated thereon. 3. So far as the present suit is concerned, it is a suit of the type mentioned in Section 7(IV-B)(d) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and Clause (d) of it is to the following effect: (d) To set aside an adoption: to set aside an adoption or to obtain a declaration that an alleged adoption is invalid, or never, in fact, took place; 4. As has been seen in the present case, the Plaintiff wants a declaration that in fact no adoption took place, and that the Defendant was not his adopted son. The properties involved or likely to be affected by the suit are shown at the end of the plaint. The valuation of these properties had to be made on the market valued and of the land in accordance with the Rules framed u/s 3. The Plaintiff himself had disclosed that he owned half share in a house, which he valued at Rs. 500/-. The Defendant had contested this valuation and had alleged that its market value would be Rs. 4,000/-. Apart from this the Defendant had also alleged that the Plaintiff owned another house in village Bokta. The Amin had calculated the value of this house at over Rs. 10,000/-. The Plaintiff does not appear to have admitted the ownership of the house in village Bokta. The trial court has not recorded any clear finding as to whether the house in village Bokta belongs to the Plaintiff. If the house in village Bokta belongs to the Plaintiff, the valuation of that house had also to be taken into account, and then the suit would be outside the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court. It was as such essential for the trial court to have recorded a finding, after giving reasons, as to the correct valuation of the house disclosed by the Plaintiff in his plaint as belonging to him, and also as to whether the house in village Bokta belongs to the Plaintiff. It was as such essential for the trial court to have recorded a finding, after giving reasons, as to the correct valuation of the house disclosed by the Plaintiff in his plaint as belonging to him, and also as to whether the house in village Bokta belongs to the Plaintiff. It was only then that the valuation of the suit could have been properly calculated, so as to determine as to whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The trial court has not given any reasons for holding that the valuation given by the Plaintiff of the house detailed in the plaint was correct, neither has it disclosed any grounds for holding that the report of the Amin was beyond jurisdiction. The trial court is accordingly directed to decide issue No. 3 afresh. 5. The revision is allowed. The trial court is directed to decide issue No. 3 afresh in view of the observations made in the judgment, and in accordance with law. The Applicant is entitled to his costs.