Skip to content


Ram Ekbal Singh and ors. Vs. Baldeo Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Cal791(1),25Ind.Cas.507
AppellantRam Ekbal Singh and ors.
RespondentBaldeo Singh and ors.
Cases ReferredRam Raj Tewari v. Girnandan Bhagat
Excerpt:
court fees act (vii of 1870), section 1(v) - suit for possession by tenant against landlord and another person claiming to be tenant--court-fees--value of subject-matter--value of relief sought. - .....in the land, was over rs. 1,000 and that the munsif was, therefore, not competent to try the suit. he held, however, that though the value of the land was over rs. 1,000, the value of the relief sought was rs. 126, the amount stated in the plaint, and decreed the suit on the merits. on appeal the point was raised before the subordinate judge who held that the munsif was wrong in looking to the value of the relief sought and had no jurisdiction to try the suit; he, therefore, remanded the case to the munsif to settle the value of the land.2. in this he was wrong. the case is governed, as he says, by the court fees act, 1870, section 7 (v), as this is a suit for the possession of land; but it does not come under any of the descriptions of land given in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of possession of land, of which they claimed to be tenants, against the admitted landlords and persons -who also claimed to be tenants. The suit -was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Arrah, and an objection was raised by the defendant that the value of the land, that is the value of the proprietary rights in the land, was over Rs. 1,000 and that the Munsif was, therefore, not competent to try the suit. He held, however, that though the value of the land was over Rs. 1,000, the value of the relief sought was Rs. 126, the amount stated in the plaint, and decreed the suit on the merits. On appeal the point was raised before the Subordinate Judge who held that the Munsif was wrong in looking to the value of the relief sought and had no jurisdiction to try the suit; he, therefore, remanded the case to the Munsif to settle the value of the land.

2. In this he was wrong. The case is governed, as he says, by the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7 (v), as this is a suit for the possession of land; but it does not come under any of the descriptions of land given in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the sub-section, as their effect is confined to land in respect of which revenue might be paid, which it could not be in respect of this land regarded as lease-hold land. The value of the subject-matter of the suit is, therefore, the value of the suit, and determines the question of jurisdiction. This is in accordance with the decision in Furzand Ali v. Mohanth Lal Puri 32 C. 268 and is consistent with that in Ram Raj Tewari v. Girnandan Bhagat 15 A. 63 : A.W.N. (1892) 240.

3. The result is that the appeal is allowed, the order of the lower Court is set aside, and the case is remitted to that Court in order that it may be heard according to law. The appellant is entitled to his costs, which are assessed at two gold mohurs.


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