The present revision petition is against the order dated 22.9.92 passed by the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon in Title Suit No. 11 of 1992. By the said order the learned Court took up three issues as preliminary issues, and all the three issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. The three issues were regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit, proper valuation of the suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. 2. The suit was filed by the opposite party against the present petitioners praying for declaration that the registered sale deed executed by the plaintiffs wherein a consideration of sum of Rs. 35.03J/- and another unregistered sale deed where consideration was shown at Rs. 90,030/- are void and these docu­ments did not confer any title on defendant No. l. Plaintiff also made a prayer for decree for perpetual injunction and other reliefs. In paragraph 9j of the plaint it was stated that for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee, the suit was valued at Rs.1,000/-. According to defendants who are petitioners herein was under valued as the consideration in respect of both the sale deeds was Rs.l lakh. Accordingly, the above three issues were framed and was decided against the defendants. 3. Heard Mr. SS Sharma, and Mr. AS Choudhury, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 4. From the averments made in the plaint, it is clear that the present suit comes under sub-clause (c) of clause (iv) of section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1873. Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887 provides that where in suits other than those referred to in Court Fees Act, section 7 paragraphs (v), (vi) and (xi) and paragraph (x) clause (d), court fees are payable on advalorem under the Court Fees Act, the value as determinable for the computation of court fees and the value for the purpose of jurisdiction shall be the same. The present suit comes under section 8. 5. It is true that in such types of suit plaintiff may give its own valuation for the purpose of court fee as well as jurisdiction, but it may be stated that by Assam Amendment, namely, Assam Act XVIII of 1947, sections 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D were incorporated in the Court Fees Act. 5. It is true that in such types of suit plaintiff may give its own valuation for the purpose of court fee as well as jurisdiction, but it may be stated that by Assam Amendment, namely, Assam Act XVIII of 1947, sections 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D were incorporated in the Court Fees Act. Section 7A provides that if the Court is of the opinion that subject matter of any suit has been wrongly valued, it may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such enquiries as it thinks fit for such purpose. Sections 7B, 7C and 7D deal with the mode of such enquiry. 6. In Industrial Co-operative Bank Ltd. vs. Bhubaneswar Barthakur, AIR 1983 Gauhati 71, this Court held that in a suit for declaration and consequen­tial relief falling under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act, the Court is not bound by the valuation put by plaintiff and in view of section 7A, the Court can revise the same and determine the correct valuation. 7. In Tara Devi vs. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, (1987) 4 SCC 69 , the Apex Court held that in a suit for declaration with consequential relief falling under section 7(iv)(c)of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is free to make his own 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 unless such valuation is arbitrary, unreasonable and the plaint has been under valued, the Court can examine the valuation and can revise the same. 8. In Abdul Hamid Shamsi vs. Abdul Majid & others, (1988) 2 SCC 575 , the Apex Court held that ordinarily the Court shall not examine the correctness of the valuation chosen, but the plaintiff cannot act arbitrarily in this matter and if a plaintiff chooses whimsically a radiculous figure it tantamounts to not exercising his right in this regard and in such a case it is not only open to the Court but its duty is to reject such a valuation. In the case in hand though the learned trial Court accepted the valuation, I am unable to accept the reasoning given by the learned Court inasmuch as the learned Court did not consider properly how the suit was valued at Rs.100/- though the consid­eration of two sale deeds were Rs. In the case in hand though the learned trial Court accepted the valuation, I am unable to accept the reasoning given by the learned Court inasmuch as the learned Court did not consider properly how the suit was valued at Rs.100/- though the consid­eration of two sale deeds were Rs. 35,000/- and Rs.90,000/- That being the position, I have no other alternative, but to remit the case to the learned Court below to make an enquiry as provided under sections 7A to 7D of the Court Fees Act. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Court is directed to make a proper enquiry in this regard. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Court on 18.3.93 for obtaining necessary orders. Office to send a copy of this order immediately to the Court below.