JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This civil revision is directed against a decision regarding pecuniary jurisdiction of the court' to try the suit. 2. The opposite party No. 1 as Plaintiff brought Title Suit No. 117 of 1978 for a declaration of his occupancy right over the suit land and for some consequential reliefs. The suit land is ten acres in extent The suit was valued at Rs. 200/- for the relief of declaration of title and Rs. 10/- for the relief of permanent injunction. The Petitioner who was Defendant No. 4 in the suit filed written statement contending, inter alia, that the market value of the suit land being more than Rs. 20,000/- the learned Munsif of Kendrapara had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. The question of pecuniary jurisdiction of the court was taken up as a preliminary issue and the learned Munsif came to hold that the market value of the suit land would not exceed Rs. 2,000/- and hence the suit was within his pecuniary jurisdiction. Aggrieved by this decision, the Defendant No. 4 has come up in revision. It is urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the learned Munsif having overlooked material evidence on the record his decision has been erroneous. 4. This being a suit for declaration of title with consequential relief is covered by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act. In such a suit, the Plaintiff is no doubt entitled to value the relief sought in the plaint at his option. But he cannot be allowed to place an arbitrary valuation on the relief. The valuation put by the Plaintiff should have some relation with the real market value of the property at the time of institution of the suit. If the valuation put by the Plaintiff is arbitrary, unreasonable and grossly disproportionate the court has to fix the proper value. I am fortified in this view by a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jhara Padhanuni v. Bhagirathi Padhan and Ors. ILR 1976 Cutt 707. In suits coming under the purview of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, the valuation for court-fees and the valuation for jurisdiction must be the same. 5. The Plaintiff who was examined as P.W. 2 stated that the value of the suit land would be Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/-. ILR 1976 Cutt 707. In suits coming under the purview of Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, the valuation for court-fees and the valuation for jurisdiction must be the same. 5. The Plaintiff who was examined as P.W. 2 stated that the value of the suit land would be Rs. 700/- to Rs. 800/-. But his evidence shows that he has no idea about the value of the lands in the locality. The Plaintiff's own witness Adhar Chandra Mandal (P.W. 1) stated in cross-examination that the value of the suit land would be Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. He proved a sale deed dated 18-6-1962 which shows that one acre of land was sold for Rs. 200/- only. The transaction under this sale deed having taken place a bout 16 years prior to the date of institution of the suit cannot be accepted as a proper criterion for fixing the market value of the land. The Petitioner on the other hand proved two sale deeds Exts. A and B which were executed on 28-3-1977, that is, about one year before the institution of the suit. In Ext. A, one acre of land was sold for Rs. 2400/- and in Ext. B. three acres of land were sold for Rs. 7,000/-. The lands covered by Exts. A and B are situated at village Kharinasi where the suit lands are situated. D.W. 1 is the purchaser under Ext. A and D.W. 2 is the purchaser under Ext. B According to D.W. 1, the lands purchased by him under Ext. A are situated near the suit land. He also stated that the suit land and the lands covered by Ext. A are of the same variety. D.W. 2 stated that the land covered by Ext. B and the suit land are of the same variety and that the land covered by Ext. B is situated near the suit land. The learned Munsif discarded the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 on the ground that they could not give the plot nos, of the lands purchased by them. Since they have produced the sale deeds containing the particulars of the lands purchased by them their evidence could not be brushed aside merely on the ground that they could not give the plot Nos. from their memory. 6. Considering the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, the sale deeds Exts. Since they have produced the sale deeds containing the particulars of the lands purchased by them their evidence could not be brushed aside merely on the ground that they could not give the plot Nos. from their memory. 6. Considering the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2, the sale deeds Exts. A and B and the statement of the Plaintiff's own witness (P.W. 1) that the value of the suit land would be Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/-. I have least hesitation to hold that the valuation put by the Plaintiff is arbitrary and unreasonable and that the valuation of the suit is much more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif. 7. For the reasons set forth above, I would allow the civil revision, set aside the order of the learned Munsif and direct that the plaint be returned to the Plaintiff for being presented to the proper court. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.