Skip to content


In Re: Mazumdar Sobhanadri Rao Pantulu Garu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933Mad42; 140Ind.Cas.462; (1932)63MLJ759
AppellantIn Re: Mazumdar Sobhanadri Rao Pantulu Garu and ors.
Cases ReferredBalasidhantam v. Perunial Chetti
Excerpt:
- - the defendants, though they do not put plaintiff's title as high as he would like, at least admit that he is the landholder of the land in question, and so far his title to the land is not in dispute......4), and the inam is not an estate within the definition in act i of 1908 (paragraph 5) ; all tenants are tenants at will (paragraph 6). in december, 1926, the defendants who are temporary tenants were given notice to quit (paragraph 7) and the plaintiff prays for a decree establishing his right in the suit lands and removing the defendants.2. this plaint plainly sets forth a familiar form of suit. the inamdar claims both varams, and therefore though he has no proof of actually letting the defendants into possession, he claims the right to eject them after due notice, by virtue of his title to the kudivaram. the tenants do not dispute his claim to the melwaram, but assert occupancy right.3. the court-fee has been paid under section 7, clause (xi)(cc) of the court fees act. the lower.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jackson, J.

1. This is a question of Court-fees. The plaintiff, an inamdar, claims to have full right to both kudivaram and mehvaram in the land which comprises the inam (paragraph 3), so the letting to tenants is for temporary periods (paragraph 4), and the inam is not an estate within the definition in Act I of 1908 (paragraph 5) ; all tenants are tenants at will (paragraph 6). In December, 1926, the defendants who are temporary tenants were given notice to quit (paragraph 7) and the plaintiff prays for a decree establishing his right in the suit lands and removing the defendants.

2. This plaint plainly sets forth a familiar form of suit. The inamdar claims both varams, and therefore though he has no proof of actually letting the defendants into possession, he claims the right to eject them after due notice, by virtue of his title to the kudivaram. The tenants do not dispute his claim to the melwaram, but assert occupancy right.

3. The Court-fee has been paid under Section 7, Clause (xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act. The Lower Court has ordered that the fee shall be computed under Section 7(v) and the plaintiff appeals.

4. Clause (xi) is applicable when the suit is based on a lease, but not when the plaintiff also wants a decree establishing his 'title, Balasidhantam v. Perunial Chetti : AIR1915Mad654 . So far the order of the Lower Court is unexceptionable. But the learned Subordinate Judge finds that the suits are for the declaration of plaintiff's title to the plaint schedule lands which is not quite correct. The defendants, though they do not put plaintiff's title as high as he would like, at least admit that he is the landholder of the land in question, and so far his title to the land is not in dispute. The only quarrel between them is whether he is entitled to the kudivaram, and that is not on the same footing as a dispute between alleged owner and trespasser. Clause (v)(c) would apply to a case where the plaintiff is suing to be put into possession of an mam, and it can hardly have been contemplated that a plaintiff should pay the same court-fee when he sues for possession of an inam against a rival claimant, and when as undisputed inamdar he asserts his title to the kudivaram.

5. The appropriate section would therefore seem to be Section 7(iv)(c) to obtain a declaratory decree (that he is entitled to the kudivaram) and consequential relief of possession.

6. The record will be returned to the Lower Court to value the suits accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //