JAMILA BI Vs. MAHBOOB BI AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition preferred by the Petitioner-plaintiff against the order of the learned Third Additional District Judge, Bangalore, in Misc. A. 81/53, confirming that of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Banga-lore, in O. S. No. 25 of 1952-53, holding that the value of the subject matter of the suit was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of his Court and ie-turning the plaint for presentation to proper Court.

(2.) The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents-defendants in the Court of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, alleging that the Respondents-defendants were in occupation of the schedule premises with her permission, that the said permission was subsequently revoked by her, that she had issued a notice to quit, that the defendants did not comply with her request and continued to be in occupation and that they should be evicted and possession of the premises secured to her. For purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction, she valued the suit at Rs. 2,694-8-0 describing the suit as a suit for ejectment. in other words, the plaintiff valued the suit for purposes of court-fee under Section 4(xi)(cc) of the Mysore Court-fees Act, as if the suit was for the ejectment of a tenant. A preliminary issue was framed regarding the question of jurisdiction and the learned Subordinate Judge found that the valuation made by the plaintiff was not correct, that the valuation should have been under Section 4(v)(b) of the Court-fees Act and that the value so arrived at was beyond the pecuniary limits of his Court and he accord-ingly returned the plaint for presentation to pro-per Court. The plaintiff took up this order in appeal and the learned (sic) Additional District Judge dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. As against that order of the learned District Judge, this Revision Petition is filed.

(3.) It appears to me that there is no substance in this revision petition. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the amount of Court-fee payable by the plaintiff for eject-ment of a licensee from a house which he was permitted to occupy, is under Section 4 (xi) (cc) of the Court-fees Act as contended on the side of the plaintiff, or under Section 4 (v)(b) of the Court-fees Act as urged on the side of the defendants. I think that the proposition of law as enunciated on the side of the defendants has to be accepted as sound.