ORDER 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 19.1.195, passed by District judge, Panna, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 2/92, confirming the order dated 13.12.91 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Panna, in C.S. No. 174-A of 1991, returning the plaint to the plaintiff/applicant for presentation to the proper Court. 2. The applicant filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of Khasra Nos. 134/3, 139/2, 140/2 and 141/2, area 2.517 hectares, situate in village Sunaihara, Tahsil and District Panna, against the non-applicants. It was alleged by the applicant that on 17.9.84, there was an agreement between the applicant and the previous owner Smt. Shimladevi that the suit land shall be sold for Rs. 18,000/- to the applicant. The applicant, out of Rs. 18,000/- paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the sale price and, thereafter, the said Shimladevi placed the applicant in possession of the suit land. It was agreed between the parties that the balance of Rs. 8000/- shall be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The applicant could not get the sale deed registered from Shimladevi during her lifetime owing to her ill-health. She expired on 1.7.87 and, thereafter, her sons, the non-applicants No.1 to 5 declined to execute the sale deed in favour of the applicant, after receiving Rs. 8,000/-, the balance amount of sale price of the suit land. On the other hand, they sold the suit land, by a registered sale deed dated 13.10.88 to the non-applicant Nos. 6 to 8. In view of the aforesaid sale deed in favour of the non-applicants No. 6 to 8, they were trying to dispossess the applicant from the suit land and, therefore, the applicant was compelled to file the suit for permanent injunction restrarning the non-applicants from interfering with his possession over the suit land. It was also claimed that after the agreement between the applicant and Smt. Shimladevi, the applicant, who was in possession of the suit land, invested Rs. 30,000/- on the suit land for agricultural purposes. 3. The non-applicants No.6 to 8 raised an objection that the suit, as framed and filed, was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court as the market value of the suit land was about Rs. 48,000/- and the applicant should have valued the suit land at that rate. 4. 30,000/- on the suit land for agricultural purposes. 3. The non-applicants No.6 to 8 raised an objection that the suit, as framed and filed, was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court as the market value of the suit land was about Rs. 48,000/- and the applicant should have valued the suit land at that rate. 4. In reply, the applicant submitted that this is a suit for permanent injunction and it related to agricultural land, which are assessed to land revenue as such and for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdictivn the value of the suit land would be 20 times of the land revenue. Accordingly, the suit was rightly valued at Rs. 300/-. 5. The trial Court accepted the contention of the non-applicants No.6 to 8 and held that the suit land was beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court as the market value of the suit land was more than Rs. 10,000/-; and directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff/applicant. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the finding of the trial Court and held that the trial Court has rightly returned the plaint. 6. In this revision, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is not necessary to value a suit for permanent injunction in accordance with the market value. The applicant was entitled to value the suit land in accordance with section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court Fees Act and put his own valuation on the suit land on the relief claimed by him. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the valuation of the suit lands for the purpose of injunction could not be more than what the applicant would have vlaued the Land for the purpose of possession. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the valuation for the purpose of possession of the suit land, which is assessed to land revenue, has already been fixed u/S. 7 (v) (a) of the Court Fees Act. It was not in dispute that the suit land was assessed to land revneue and the land revenue was payable on it and, therefore, if the plaintiff filed the suit for possession, he would have valued the suit land only at twenty times the land revenue. It was not in dispute that the suit land was assessed to land revneue and the land revenue was payable on it and, therefore, if the plaintiff filed the suit for possession, he would have valued the suit land only at twenty times the land revenue. The same principle, according to the learned counsel for the applicant, would operate in a suit for injunction because, according to the learned counsel, the value of relief in this case would be the same to the plaintiff. It is, therefore, not necessary to value the suit land at market value. The valuation put by the applicant is not arbitrary and it cannot be, therefore, interfered with. 7. The learned counsel for the non-applicants opposed this argument and asserted that the suit would be governed by section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act. According to the learned counsel for the non-applicants, the applicant was bound to get the subsequent sale-deed set aside, which was executed by the non-applicants No. I to 5 in favour of the non-applicants No.6 to 8, as it was binding upon him. For this purpose, he was required to pay the court-fees on the market value of the suit land. 8. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, it is apparent that the suit filed by the applicant is a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of his possession under an agreement to sell the property. It is not disputed by the applicant that the suit property was not transferred by Shimla Devi, in his favour, by a registered sale-deed. On the other hand, there is an admission of the applicant that the sale was incomplete due to illness of Shimla Devi. 9. From the facts aforesaid, the only inference, which can be drawn, is that the applicant has filed this suit on the basis of his possession under an agreement. He has no title to the suit land. The applicant also admits that the non-applicants No.6, 7 and 8 have obtained a registered sale-deed, dated 13.10.88 from non-applicants No. 1 to 5. Since the applicant had no title to the suit land, the title of the suit land passed to the non applicants No.1 to 5 via Shimla Devi and the non-applicants No. 1 to 5, being the real owners, had transferred the suit property to the non-applicants No.6 to 8. Since the applicant had no title to the suit land, the title of the suit land passed to the non applicants No.1 to 5 via Shimla Devi and the non-applicants No. 1 to 5, being the real owners, had transferred the suit property to the non-applicants No.6 to 8. The applicant cannot get permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, unless he files a suit for setting aside the sale-deed, executed in favour of the non-applicants No.6 to 8. The sale-deed would be binding upon him. The allegations in the plaint show that this relief is inherent in the plaint. It is well established that the Court is not guided by the relief in determining the question of pecuniary jurisdiction and the court-fees. After going through the plaint the nature of relief claimed by the plaintiff can be judged. Otherwise, on the basis of relief clause, the question of jurisdiction and court-fees, would be determined wrongly. As already stated that the applicant claims that he is in possession of the suit land whether, right or wrong, and admitted non-applicants No.6 to 8 acquire title by a registered sale-deed. The applicant was, therefore, bound to get the sale-deed set aside, if he claims permanent injunction restraining all the non-applicants from interfering with the suit land. As long as a registered sale-deed was not executed in favour of the applicant, he cannot avoid the registered sale-deed dated 13.1.88. Thus, in fact, the plaintiff is claiming on the basis of the agreement, rightly or wrongly, that he is entitled to possession, despite the sale-deed executed by the non-applicants No. I to 5 in favour of the non-applicants No.6 to 8. He is, therefore, bound to pay the court-fees on the basis of the value of the sale-deed dated 13.10.88 because that would be the value of the suit. The suit is, therefore, in effect, governed by section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court Fees Act because it involves the relief of declaration that the sale-deed dated 13.10.88 is not binding upon the applicant/plaintiff; and for permanent injunction. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court comes to the conclusion that both the Courts-below have rightly held that the applicant is bound to value the suit land at its market value on the date of filing of the plaint; and rightly returned the plaint to the applicant/plaintiff for its presentation to the proper Court. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court comes to the conclusion that both the Courts-below have rightly held that the applicant is bound to value the suit land at its market value on the date of filing of the plaint; and rightly returned the plaint to the applicant/plaintiff for its presentation to the proper Court. There is no force in this revision. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.