JUDGMENT The applicant claimed that he had purchased the suit land situate at Village Sangakheda Kalan, Tahsil Babai, District Hoshangabad bearing land survey No. 909 area 5.40 acres from the non-applicant No. 1 by a registered sale-deed dated 28.7.1997 for a consideration of Rs. 2,76,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand). According to the applicant, he was placed in possession pursuant to the aforesaid sale-deed. The non-applicants were trying to disturb his possession and, therefore, he filed a suit for permanent injunction. The, applicant did not specifically value the suit land for the purpose of jurisdiction. The trial Court, upon an objection raised by the non-applicants, while hearing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the applicant, decided that the suit was under-valued and held that the applicant shall state the valuation according to the market value of the suit land. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.9.1998. It is true that in a suit for permanent injunction, which is covered by section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is entitled to value the suit land according to his own choice and that valuation of the suit land shall determine the jurisdiction of the trial Court in all cases covered by section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act including; the suit under section 7(iv) (d) of Court Fees Act. The question often arises how to put a valuation in a suit for temporary injunction covered by section 7(iv) (c) or 7(iv) (d) of the Court Fees Act. Since the plaintiff is entitled to value the suit according to value stated by him, he must value it reasonably but not arbitrarily. It is also well established that in the suit for permanent injunction, the valuation should be according to thing affected. This is the normal rule. However, there are exceptions to this rule, where the thing affected may not be the proper value for the purpose of payment of Court fees. In this particular case, the normal rule of thing affected need not be the value for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction. The applicant is in possession of the suit land. The interference on the part of the non-applicants is likely to cause him inconvenience and cause doud on his title. It is also not disputed that the suit land is agricultural land. The applicant is in possession of the suit land. The interference on the part of the non-applicants is likely to cause him inconvenience and cause doud on his title. It is also not disputed that the suit land is agricultural land. There is an artificial mode of valuation for agricultural land in a suit for possession by valuing it twenty times the land revenue. Since the applicant could have valued the suit for possession twenty times of land revenue, he can also adopt the same standard for valuing the suit as twenty times the land revenue, in a suit for permanent injunction of agricultural land where he was in possession. This valuation could not be said to be arbitrary and the Court should not revise this valuation of agricultural land. For the reason, that it would be too much to ask to a plaintiff to value his suit more than that he would have valued in a suit for possession when all he is demanding that the opposite party should not interfere with his possession. Accordingly, all that the necessary in this case for the plaintiff is to amend the plaint and put the valuation twenty times the land revenue. Learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that he has filed today an interlocutory application for grant of stay. It is not necessary to pass any order on that application as this revision is being finally disposed of subject to aforesaid observations. The revision stands disposed of accordingly.