JUDGMENT By the impugned order dated 16.7.1992 under appeal, the learned Judge of the Trial Court has returned the plaint for presentation to the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Satna. The learned Judge in her order has stated that the suit has been valued both for the purposes of jurisdiction and the court-fees on the basis of 20 times of the land revenue payable on the land on the basis of share of the land claimed by the plaintiff (N.A. No. 1). A copy of the plaint has been filed in this appeal. I have perused the prayer clause and the several reliefs claimed in the plaint. The pleadings in the plaint show that admittedly the lands involved in the suit have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the State Government for an irrigation project. The compensation in the sum of Rs. 20, 12,000/- has been determined as payable to the present defendants. On this fact, the plaintiff claims a relief of declaration, partition and possession to the extent of 1/2 share of the land. In the alternative it is claimed in the suit that she be declared as entitled to 1/20fthe compensation money and an injunction to the effect be issued against the defendants restraining them from obtaining the whole amount of compensation. Learned Counsel appearing for the defendants points out that in the Court below they had only raised an objection regarding court-fees. They never objected to the jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of the valuation of the suit. Learned Counsel for the appellants points out that on admitted fact, the plaintiff can only be granted a relief, if at all if her share is proved to be half to the extent of her share in the compensation money and that would be a sum of Rs. 10, 06, 000/-. The suit should have, therefore, been valued both for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees in the sum of Rs. 10,06,000/-. Reliance is placed on 1963 JLJ 674 (Badrilal v. State of M.P. and another). The learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant/plaintiff made attempt to support the order passed by the Court below. 10, 06, 000/-. The suit should have, therefore, been valued both for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees in the sum of Rs. 10,06,000/-. Reliance is placed on 1963 JLJ 674 (Badrilal v. State of M.P. and another). The learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant/plaintiff made attempt to support the order passed by the Court below. It is stated that the relief substantially was for declaration of her title to the land acquired to the extent of her half share and court-fees payable was only on the basis of 20 times of the land revenue under section 7 of the Court Fees Act. Having considered the submission made by the counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the plaint particularly relief clauses, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is in fact claiming a relief of getting a sum of Rs. 10,06,000/- being half amount of compensation money payable for the land as her share in the lands. That is also one of the specific reliefs claimed in the suit and that relief for the purposes both of jurisdiction and court-fees should have been valued on the basis of the amount claimed. Learned Judge of the Trial Court was, therefore, wrong in holding that the suit for purpose of jurisdiction and court-fees ought to have been valued on the basis of 20 times of land revenue. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order returning the plaint is erroneous in law and is hereby set aside. The appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order returning the plaint passed on 16.7.1992 is hereby set aside and it is directed that the Trial Court shall proceed with the case on merits after permitting the parties to lead such evidence on the preliminary issues of payment of court fees. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff being a woman is exempted from payment of Court-fees under the notification issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh under the provisions of Court Fees Act. If that be so, the learned Trial Court shall consider the matter and proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with law. Let the parties appear before the Trial Court to participate in further proceedings in the case on 14.2.1994. In the circumstances, there shall so no order as to costs.