Seshagiri Ayyar, J.
1. We think the learned Judge is right. The first defendant obtained a decree against the second defendant and attached the suit property as his. The plaintiff put in a claim petition. He made the judgment-debtor and the decree-holder (second and first defendants) parties to that petition. His claim was disallowed and he has brought this present suit under order XXI, Rule 63. The value of the property in suit is Es, 4,000, whereas the decree of the first defendant is for Rs. 300. The question for determination is what is the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. The Court fee under Schedule II, Article 17 of the Court Fees Act, will be the same whatever the value of the property. The District Judge held that the suit ought to be instituted in his Court as the value of the land in dispute exceeded the pecuniary limits of the District Munsif'a jurisdiction. The defendant asks this Court to revise that order on the ground that the value of the suit is the value of the decree 1 obtained by the first defendant against the second defendant.
2. Under Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to put a higher value on the suit than what is covered by his interest in the litigation. The decision of the; Judicial Committee in Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra I.L.R. (1908) Calc. 202 is to the same effect. Their Lordships say that the value of the action is its value to the plaintiff. If that criterion is applied, the suit ought to be valued as with reference to the relief sought by the plaintiff. In Fisher v. Arunachella Chettiar (1909) 19 M.L.J. 236, this Court came to the conclusion that for purposes of jurisdiction the right put forward by the plaintiff fixes the value of the suit.
3. On the other hand the decision of the Full Bench in Krishnaswami Naidu v. Somasundaram Chettiar I.L.R. (1907) Mad. 335 lays down that in determining jurisdiction the lowest value whether it be that of the decree under execution or of the property under attachment should be accepted as determining the forum for the trial of the suit. We find no reference in this judgment to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Phul Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra I.L.R. (1908) Calc. 202. Moreover in the present case both to the claim proceedings and to the suit, the judgment-debtor was a party. The prayer in the suit is not only to cancel the attachment but also for a declaration that the judgment-debtor has no interest in the property. The proper issue must relate to the conflicting title of the plaintiff and of the second defendant, and the decision on it will be binding on both, Consequently, the value to the plaintiff of this suit is his full interest in the land, the attachment of which he seeks to raise. The learned Judges who decided Krishnaswami Naidu v. Somasundaram Chettiar I.L.R 30 (1907) Mad. 335 base their decision on the ground that the judgment-debtor will not be affected by the decision in the suit. The present case is distinguishable from the Full Bench ruling because the plaintiff here has distinctly asked for an adjudication against the second defendant. It is doubtful whether the Full Bench decision is good law having regard to the decision in Phui, Kumari v. Ghanshyam Misra I.L.R. (1908) Calc. 202 However that may be, we feel no difficulty in holding in this case that the learned Judge is right in his view that the value of the suit is the value of the entire property claimed by the plaintiff.
4. We dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal with costs.