Glover, J.@mdashThe only point taken in this special appeal is that the Judge has erroneously dismissed the claim, on the ground of under-valuation. The plaintiff, who is the special appellant, contends, that be has fulfilled the requirements of the law by valuing his suit, which is for an estate paying revenue to Government, at ten times the sudder jumma; i.e., the sudder jumma being Rs. 25, his valuation of the suit at Rs. 250 is correct and proper. It appears to us, that this contention fails on the plaintiff''s own statement of his case. The note of the Stamp Act, which the special appellant refers to, after laying down the amount of stamp duty to be paid when the property is an estate paying revenue to Government, where the settlement is temporary, and where it is permanent, goes on to say, that such and such amount shall be taken to be the market value of such property, unless and until the contrary be proved. This case is a suit for preemption and the plaintiff claims the right of prior purchase over this property at the price of 2,200 rupees. According to his own showing, therefore, the value of the property is not 250 but 2,200 rupees. The very best proof that this is the value of the property is, that be is asking to pay that sum for it. It appears to us that this case comes exactly under the words of the law, and that although 250 rupees may represent ten times the sudder jumma of the estate, it has most certainly been proved by the plaintiff''s own admission that the value is very much higher. The decision of the Court below is therefore affirmed : but considering that this objection was not taken in the Court of first instance, each party must pay his own costs.
Mitter, J.
2. I concur. The suit was clearly under-valued, and brought in the wrong Court. It ought to have been brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge.
