Judgment :- The 5th defendant who alone contesting the suit has preferred this Revision challenging the decision of the trial court with regard to preliminary issue relating to payment of court fee. 2. The first respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No:495 of 1998 for the relief of Declaration and Injunction. The plaintiff contended that the suit properties and other properties originally belonged to one Ponnammal. She donated the properties to Kannammal @ Thailyalnayaki. The suit item is shown as the 1st item in registered Donation Deed. She was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties by planting coconut trees and harvesting the same. The plaintiff inherited the said property and she is in possession and enjoyment of the properties on behalf of other legal heirs of Kannammal also. While so, there were deeds executed to one Chidambaram for leasing the usufruct of the coconut trees. Chidambaram defaulted in paying the rents and had initiated a proceeding in CPTPA NO.5 of 1991 before the Revenue Court, Pudhucherry. The said Chidambaram died leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs. The defendants 1 to 4 joined hands with the 5th defendant, the revision petitioner herein and claimed untenable rights over the suit property. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs. .3. Admittedly D.1 to D.4 were set ex parte. D.5 contested the suit by filing his written statement. He took the plea that as per the prevailing practice in Puducherry, he purchased the suit property from the owners and other unauthorised occupants and took delivery of possession. 4. He also filed I.A.No.3057 of 1999 to take up the issue of payment of court fee as a preliminary issue contending that the suit property is a vacant land and court fee has to be paid based on the market value of the same. The learned District Munsif taking into consideration of the both oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has correctly valued the suit property by paying 30 times of assessment of kist which is the market value of the suit property as provided under Section 7(2) of the Pondicherry Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. Aggrieved of the said decision, this CRP has been preferred. 5. Aggrieved of the said decision, this CRP has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the learned District Munsif has no jurisdiction to deal with the as the suit property is exceeding the value of Rs.10 lakhs based on Exs.X.1 to X.4, which have not been properly appreciated by the trial court. The decision arrived at by the trial court construing the suit property as an agricultural land is erroneous, whereas it is only a vacant plot. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on the decision of this court in Solaiammal (died) and another Vs. Rajarathinam and five others, reported in 2003 (4) CTC 268 , wherein this court held that the Courts while ascertaining the court fee paid and pecuniary jurisdiction should look into the substance of relief sought for and not to be carried away by mere plaint averments. 6. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are only agricultural lands and coconut trees are planted and hence it only attracts 30 times of kist, being the market value of the same. Whereas, the 5th defendant relied on Ex.X-2, the valuation certificate, which speaks about the guideline value and pleaded that the guideline value and market values of the properties would be high and hence the trial court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction. .7. According to the learned senior counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff, the guideline value cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of valuing the suit and court fees as held by the Apex Court in R. Saibharathi Vs. J. Jayalalitha. Learned senior counsel also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru and another Vs. Jasti Rohini and another ( 1995 (1) SCC 717 ) wherein the Apex Court categorically held that it would be dangerous to value the property according to the guideline value, as there is no guarantee or truth or correctness of the data given in the guideline. 8. Admittedly, the Issues 1 and 2, relating to valuation of the suit and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court, were taken up as preliminary issues in the suit by passing an order in the I.A.No:3057 of 1999 filed by the revision petitioner. 8. Admittedly, the Issues 1 and 2, relating to valuation of the suit and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court, were taken up as preliminary issues in the suit by passing an order in the I.A.No:3057 of 1999 filed by the revision petitioner. Further, both the plaintiff and the 5th defendant have examined witnesses and marked documents in support of their claims in the full-fledged trial on these two issues. Therefore there can be no grievance by either parties as to the taking up of the valuation of the suit and pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court as preliminary issues. 9. As regards whether the trial court is correct in not taking the guideline register value for valuing the suit, instead followed Section 7(2) of the Act for arriving at the market value considering the suit property as agricultural land, it has to be held that, even though the substance of the relief claimed is for declaration and consequential injunction, as has been held by this Court in G.Krishamurthy and two others Vs. Sarangapani & another, reported in 1996 (I) CTC 280 , the suit property being assessed to revenue kist, the decision of the trial court that market value of the land which is assessed through the revenue records will be reckoned under Section 7 of the Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, is in order. The trial court came to the right conclusion that the suit property is dry punja land as classified in the revenue records as agricultural land as seen from Exs.X.3,X.4, X.5 and X.6 and the same is assessed by revenue kist i.e., Rs.1.40 and 70 paise, in total Rs.10. If so, Rs.2.10 x 30 = Rs.63.00 Therefore less than Rs.400/=. Under Section 25(b) half of the market value to be taken, which is less than Rs.400/= and therefore, the court fee of Rs.30.50/= paid is proper and correct one. The plaintiff has also adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of his contention. The documents marked on the side of the defendants themselves would show that the suit property is assessed to revenue kist. .10. A combined reading of Sections 7 and 25 of the Act would make it clear that if the property in question is a land assessed to be taxed and if so 30 times the assessment shall be presumed to be the market value. .10. A combined reading of Sections 7 and 25 of the Act would make it clear that if the property in question is a land assessed to be taxed and if so 30 times the assessment shall be presumed to be the market value. Section 2(b) is to the effect that where the land is a house site whether assessed to full revenue or not, poramboke or any other land not falling under clause (a) its market value. So it could be seen that the Court Fees Act makes a distinction between the land and a house site and where the land is assessed meaning thereby that it is an agricultural land. So, the suit property is classified as dry punja land in revenue records and not as a house site. The suit property being classified in the revenue records as agricultural land and it is assessed to revenue kist, which is fortified by the oral and documentary evidence, the market value of the suit property is liable to be reckoned under Section 7 of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Therefore the valuation, as made in the plaint is perfectly tenable in law and calls for no interference in this revision. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the trial court. 11. In the result, the CRP is dismissed. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed. No costs.