JUDGMENT D P. Sood, J.—The plaintiffs claimed a declaration of title to the agricultural holdings assessed to land revenue shortly hereinafter referred to as suit land. The plaintiffs have valued the suit land In these terms :— “That the market value of the land in dispute for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs 2,50,000 therefore, this Honble Court has jurisdiction to try and hear this suit. That the value of the suit for the purpose of payment of Court-fees for declaratory suit is affixed Rs. 190 on which appropriate Court-fee is paid." 2. The Registry raised an objection about the valuation saying that a decree of declaration simplicitor has been prayed for without seeking consequential relief and simultaneously directed the plaintiffs to give clarification on the question of payment of Court-fee and the form of the suit. Instead the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. seeking the addition of a Khasra number without changing the area of the suit land on the ground that it had inadvertently been omitted to be written in the plaint. On the failure of the plaintiff to clarify the objection, this matter was put up before the Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs contended that the suit is governed for the purposes of jurisdiction by section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act read with section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act According to him the plaintiff has the absolute right to put on the plaint any value and the Court has no jurisdiction to examine it. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in Haribandhu Mohanty v. Harekrishna Behera and others AIR 1957 Ori 280 and Leela Dhundiraj Divekar v. E. C Shinde Sub-Registrar and another, AIR 1970 Bom 109. 4. Adverting to this point critically, if the jurisdiction of the Court is to be fettered as the learned Counsel contends then it would render nugatory the provisions of Order 7 Rules 7, 10 and 11 (b) of the C P. C It appears to me that although the value put by the plaintiffs on the suit prima facie determines the jurisdiction on the plaint it does not follow that the plaintiff is at liberty to place an arbitrary value to the suit. 5. 5. In the Full Bench decision in Mata Ram v. Daulat, ILR (1988) Nag 588 (Full Bench) it has been held that the process underlying clauses (c) and (f) of section 7 (iv) is substantially the same. Therein it was held that when the valuation put up by the plaintiff appears to be arbitrary and unreasonable the court may reject it and leave the plaintiff to correct the valuation or have the suit rejected. Similar was the view of the Patna High Court in suit covered by section 7 (iv) (c) in Salahuddin-hyder v. Dhanoolal, AIR 1945 Pat 421 and Shama Pershad Sahi v. Sheo Pershad Singh, AIR 1920 Pat 290. In Gauri Lal v. Raja Babu, AIR 1929 Pat 626, the respondent filed a suit praying for accounts from appellant No. 1. Rejecting his claim to put any valuation under section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court Fees Act, the High Court observed that when a plaintiff is required to place the valuation on his claim he must state a valuation which need only be approximately correct but qualified it by saying that, "it must not be arbitrary or manifestly inadequate. 6. In another case of Smt. Tara Devi v. Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj through Sebaits Ghandeshwar Prasad and Meshwar Prasad and another, AIR 1987 SC 2085, the suit was valued on the basis of rent payable for the land. Defendant raised a preliminary objection that the plaintiff has under valued the suit and also challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. The Supreme Court on the basis of its earlier decisions in Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramanathan Chettiar, AIR 1958 SC 245 and Meenakshisundaram hettiar v. Venkata-chalam Chettiar, AIR 1979 SC 989, held that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, the plaintiff is free to make his own estimation of the reliefs sought in the plaint and such valuation both for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction has to be ordinarily accepted It is only in cases where it appears to the Court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case that the valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been demonstratively under valued, the court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. On that principle the valuation in the said suit was held to be reasonable holding that the same was not demonstratively arbitrary nor there had been any deliberate under estimation of the reliefs. 7. No doubt both the cases relied upon by the Haribandhu Mohanty and Leela Dhundiraj Divekar(supra), relied upon by the plaintiffs do support the plaintiffs submission that in a suit for declaration with consequential reliefs under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act, the Court is bound to accept the valuation pot by the plaintiff, and that would be the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction but with respect, to my mind, this view is cot, in consonance with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Smt. Tara Devis case (supra). 8. After having adjudged the powers of the Court in the affirmative, the two questions further arise for the determination of this Court which are :— 1. What shall be the proper valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction in a suit for a declaration of title to the land separately assessed to the land revenue ? 2. What shall be the amount of Court-fee payable on such relief? 9. It is not disputed that for the purposes of jurisdiction, section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act empowers the State Government to frame rules for determining the value of the land for purposes of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in the Court Fees Act, section 7 paras (v) and (vi) and para (x) clause (d) So far as the question raised in this suit is concerned, it will be a question falling under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act and not section 7 (v), (vi) or (x) as the suit in this case is a suit for declaration. Section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court fees Act reads :— "7 (iv) (c) For a declaratory decree and consequential relief— To obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed." And, therefore, the question that has arisen is as to what should be the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction in a suit of the nature falling under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act reads : "4. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act reads : "4. Valuation of relief in certain suits relating to land not to exceed the value of the land- Where a suit mentioned in the Court-fees Act, 1870, section 7, para (iv) or Schedule II, Article 17, relates to land or an interest in land of which the value has been determined by rules under the last foregoing section, the amount at which for purposes of jurisdiction the relief sought in the suit is valued shall not exceed the value of the land or interest as determined by those rules." This section provides for suits to which section 7 (iv) of the Court-fees Act or Schedule II, Article 17 applies and it is provided that the value of the land for purposes of jurisdiction in such suits (suits to which section 7 (iv) or Schedule II, Article 17 applies), will not exceed the value of the land so determined by the rules framed under the last foregoing section. It is, therefore, clear that the value of the land which can be determined under the rules framed under section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act will be the value of land and that valuation for purposes of jurisdiction in a suit to which section 7 (iv) or Schedule II, Article 17 applies will not exceed the value so determined under the rules. 10. Under section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, rules have been framed by the State Government and published as Punjab Government Notification No. 255, dated the 4th March, 1889, for determining the value of land for purposes of jurisdiction in the suits mentioned in the Court-fees Act, section 7, paragraphs (v) and (vi) and paragraph (x), clause (d). 1. In suits for the possession of land the value of the land, for purposes of jurisdiction, shall be held to be as follows ;— (a) Where the land forms on entire estate, or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue, to Government or forms part of such an estate, and the annual revenue payable for such part is recorded in the Collectors register, and such revenue is permanently settled,—sixty times the revenue assessed on the land. (b) Where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid, the revenue is settled, but not permanently,—thirty times the such revenue so payable. (c) Where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, and net profits have arisen from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint,—fifteen times such net profits. But where no such net profits have arisen therefrom—the market value. (d) Where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and does not come under clauses (a), (b) or (c) of this rule—the market value of the land. (e) Where the subject-matter is a garden, the market value of the garden. Vide Rule 4 so framed ; 4. In the application of the above rules the word "land" includes all such rights, e g., share in village common and in wells as are accessory to the land in suit, and the word "revenue" as used in the preceding rules, when applied to land irrigated from canals, shall be held to include owners rate for the year next before the date of presentation of plaint, or half the occupiers rate for the same period in cases in which no owners rate is chargeable. 11. The above said rules have been mentioned in Volume I, Chapter 3-D of Rules and Orders of the Punjab High Court, which are applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. At this stage it may be stated that under the Suits Valuation (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act No. 30 of 1969), the only amendment brought about is that in sections 3, 8 and 9 on the one hand and in the application of section 4 of the principal Act, on the other, for the expression "the Court fees Act, 1870% wherever it occurs, the expression. 12. "The Himachal Pradesh Court-fees Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the Act)", shall be substituted. 12. "The Himachal Pradesh Court-fees Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the Act)", shall be substituted. Further it is to be noted that Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules states that when the land or interest in suit falls partly under one and partly under another of the classes enumerated in Rule 1, the value of the land in each class shall be separately calculated. 13. It, therefore, appears that from the careful reading of the paragraphs IV and V of section 7 of the Act as also Rules, the value of suit for purposes of computing Court-fee and for determining the jurisdiction of the Courts, respectively, shall be according to the chart detailed below :— Nature of suit. Provision of Court-fee Act or rules applicable. Value for purposes of Court fee under Court-fees Act, 1870. Provision of Suits Valuation Act or rules applicable Value for purposed of determining jurisdiction of court under the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, and directions made there under. Suit for possession of land : (a)* * * * * (b) Where land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government ; or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid ; and such revenue is settled but not permanently. Section 7 (v) (b) Ad valorem, on ten times the revenue payable. Section 3 and Rules framed thereunder Rules 1 (b) and 3, Chapter 3-D. Thirty times the revenue assessed on the land. 14. Now judging the facts of the instant suit as per Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 annexed with the gift-deed and consequently plaint, the disputed land forms part of an estate and is recorded as aforesaid, the revenue is settled but not permanently. There is no dispute about it. Its land revenue is Rs. 10.75 p. only. Accordingly, the valuation for the purpose of computing the Court-fee and for determining the jurisdiction of the Courts should have been computed at ten times and thirty times of the land revenue i. e. Rs. 1075 respectively. The plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction at Rs. 2,50,000 presumably claiming it to be the market value of the land. Simultaneously, the reading of gift-deed under challenge in this suit shows that the market value of the agricultural holding has been shown to be Rs. 1075 respectively. The plaintiffs have valued the suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction at Rs. 2,50,000 presumably claiming it to be the market value of the land. Simultaneously, the reading of gift-deed under challenge in this suit shows that the market value of the agricultural holding has been shown to be Rs. 38,164.14 p. The aforesaid deed is also a registered one. Thus taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances emerging from the record, it appears that the plaintiffs have chosen whimsically a ridiculous figure for the purposes of determining the valuation of the suit for jurisdiction and he has demonstratively over-valued the plaint which valuation is arbitrary and unreasonable. Ordinarily, the Court shall not examine the correctness of the value chosen but the plaintiff cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily in this matter The Court is indeed duty bound to examine such cases and if the plaint appears to be whimsically over-valued or undervalued, it is duty bound to reject such a valuation. 15. In view of the above, the plaint being excessively over-valued is directed to be returned to the plaintiffs in person or through their Counsel in accordance with law for its presentation before a proper forum. Order accordingly.