GANESH PRASAD VARMA Vs. GOVERDHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by the judgment-debtor against the order of the Second Civil Judge, Kanpur, rejecting his objection that the execution of the decree was barred by Section 11 of the Court-fees Act.

(2.) THE applicant was a tenant of premises known as "Jai Hind Cinema Building" at Kanpur and the contesting opposite parties were the landlords thereof. The landlords filed a number of suits against the tenant of which Suit No. 70 of 1958 was for ejectment, for recovery of arrears of rent and for mesne profits for use and occupation. The other suits were for recovery of arrears of rent, for mesne profits for use and occupation for certain periods and for recovery of insurance charges. The disputes in all the suits were settled by a compromise dated October 7, 1966 which was filed in Suit No. 70 of 1968 and all the suits were decreed in terms of this compromise. Under the compromise, the plaintiff decree-holder was awarded :

(3.) IT is not disputed that the amount of damages for use and occupation decreed under the compromise decree is much larger than the amounts claimed in the various suits and that the difference in the court- fees payable on the amount decreed and the amounts claimed has not been paid by the plaintiff- decree-holders. The judgment-debtors' objection was that the decree was a decree for immovable property and mesne profits and that since the difference between the court-fees actually paid and the court-fees payable had not been paid, no part of the decree could be executed. The contention of the decree-holders, on the other hand, was that the first para of Section 11 only prohibited the execution of the decree for mesne profits and not the execution of the decree for ejectment. On the arguments addressed to me, the following three points arise for decision :