Sundaram Chetty, J.
1. Having seen the report of the District Munsif, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's advocate made any statement to the effect, that the case of tenancy set up in the plaint would be given up. Moreover one of the issues framed would be unnecessary if the case of tenancy were given up. That being so the question is whether any admission or concession on the part of a pleader on a pure question of law, would estop the party from questioning it in appeal or revision. The trend of the authorities is against any such estoppel.
2. It is in this view, that the question of law has been allowed to be argued here. This is a suit falling Under Section 7, Clause 11(cc), Court-fees Act, if regard be had to the frame of the plaint. The court-fee payable has to be determined on the nature of the allegations in the plaint and not on what is set up or pleaded in the defence. There is a denial of plaintiff's title in the written statement. But in a suit of this kind based on the alleged relationship of landlord and tenant the plaintiff should succeed or fall, according to the finding on this point. The Court need not go into the question of title in this suit: vide Balaidhantam v. Perumal Chetti  27 I.C. 162. It is observed in the ease reported in Gobinda Kumar Sur v. Mohinimohan Sur : AIR1930Cal42 that sometimes the question of title is gone into, in order to determine the main question as to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant. But this is not to be treated as the rule. In the present case as it is now represented that so far as the plaintiff is concerned he would be content to have his suit decided on the questions relating to the alleged tenancy alone, I think, there is no need to investigate the title.
3. With these observations, I set aside the lower Court's order and find that no ad valorem court-fee need be paid. But as the lower Court was led into making an inquiry as to the market value, on account of a representation by the plaintiff's pleader by way of conceding this point and as the plaintiff is now going back on it I think fit to direct that the defendant's costs of that inquiry and their costs in this petition should be paid by the plaintiff-petitioner.