MOHD IBRAHIM Vs. ISHRAT HUSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Qazi Saulat Husain was the zamindar and lambardar of village Kishanpur-Faridpur-Das. On 5 11-1936, he granted a theka of his entire zamindari share in the village, which was assessed to land-revenue amounting to Rs. 200, for a period of eight years, reserving an annual rant at of Rs. 500. After the death of Saulat Husain, on the expiry of the period of the theka, Qazi Ishrat Husain and others, the opposite party, as his heirs and legal representatives, instituted a suit in the revenue Court for ejectment, under Section 214, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, against Hafiz Mohammad Ibrahim, the thekadar, who is the applicant before us. The suit was contested by the thekadar on the ground that the lessor had renewed the theka for a further period of five years, on the original terms. An issue about proprietary title, which arose in the suit, was decided by the civil Court under Section 286 (2) of the Act, and thereafter the suit was decreed.

(2.) The suit filed by the plaintiffs-opposite-party was valued, for the purpose of jurisdiction as well as for payment of court-fee, at Rs. 500, the annual rent reserved under the lease. The appeal was similarly valued by the defendant-applicant and under Sub-section (4), Section 286, of the Tenancy Act, it was filed in the Court of the District Judge. On behalf of the plaintiffs-opposite-party it was contended that, having regard to the valuation of the suit, which should have been fixed, according to the market value of the property, at Rs. 6000, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

(3.) This contention found favour with the learned District Judge, who held that under Section 4, Suits Valuation Act, the suit should have been valued according to the market value of the property, as the suit was for possession of land within the meaning of Section 7, Sub-section (v), Court-fees Act, and it was not a suit against a tenant, because a thekadar could not be considered a tenant. Evidently, it was argued before him--as it has been argued before us--that the suit was "for the recovery of immoveable property from a tenant.....holding over alter the determination of a tenancy" contemplated by Clause (cc), Sub-section (xi), Section 7 of the Act. As he found the market value of the property to be Rs. 6000, he held that he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, which should have been filed in this Court. Accordingly, he directed that the memorandum of appeal be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The order of the District Judge is being challenged in this revision.