RAM NARAIN PRASAD Vs. ATUL CHANDER MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were the plaintiffs in a suit filed against the first respondent in the Court of the Munsif 1st, Gaya (being TS No. 278 of 1971). It was alleged in the plaint that the appellants were the sons and daughters of one Jaikishun Lal who died on 1st July, 1962, leaving them behind as his sole heirs. The late Jaikishun Lal had purchased the suit property from the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 30th April, 1960. After the late Jaikishun Lal became the owner of the property, the first respondent had requested him to let the suit property to him on a monthly rental of Rs. 90/-. The proposal was accepted and the first respondent was inducted as a tenant on 1st May, 1960. On 18th May, 1960, the first respondent had executed a "Kiravanama" in favour of the late Jaikishun Lal in the aforementioned terms. The first respondent paid some rent to the late Jaikishun Lal and thereafter to the plaintiffs, the last of such payments having been made on 7th August, 1962. The first appellant was a minor when Jaikishun Lal died. Upon attaining majority the first appellant had filed a petition for mutation of the Municipal register in respect of the suit property. The 1st respondent had filed objections thereto, which had been rejected. The appellants were the owners of the suit property, the 1st respondent was their tenant and he was in arrears of rent. Being a defaulter he, was liable to be evicted from the suit property. The appellants needed the suit property for personal use. For the purposes of jurisdiction and Court-fees, the suit was "valued at Rs. 1080/ - being the monthly rent of the house in suit for 12 months and the appellants, on payment of court-fees of Rs. 157.50, prayed for the following reliefs :

(2.) The 1st respondent filed a written statement in which he claimed that in April, 1960 he was in need of money and had approached the late Jaikishun Lal for a loan. The late Jaikishun Lal had insisted that the security for the loan should be in the form of a sale deed with a clause for reconveyance as also a "Kiravanama" showing a monthly rent for the suit property of Rs. 90/ -. The 1st respondent being in urgent need of money had executed these documents under undue influence and compulsion. The 1st respondent denied that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and himself.

(3.) The 1st respondent moved a petition in the trial court averring that the court "in view of the pleadings of the parties has to decide in respect of the title not incidentally but in a fullfledged manner" and, therefore, the appellants could not proceed with the suit unless ad valorem court-fees on the market value of the suit property were paid. Reliance was placed upon the judgment reported in 1985 Pat LJR (HC) 358. Upon this petition, the trial court ordered thus :