GANESH GOPAL Vs. MORESHWAR NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very interesting question arises in this Civil Revn. Appln. as to whether the suit filed is covered by Section 7 (v) or Section 7 (xi) (cc), Court-fees Act.

(2.) A few facts may be stated. Deft. 4 was a lessee of defts. 1, 2 and 3 under a lease dated 28-8-1941, expiring on 29-3-1949. Pending this lease the pltff. passed a rent note in respect of the same property to defts. 1, 2 and 3 on 9 1-1942, and under this rent note he was to get the property from 30-3-1949. The rent fixed under this rent note was Bs. 800 for the first year and the rent note was for ten years. As deft. 4 failed to vacate and give possession to the pltff' on 30-3-1949, the pltf. after giving notice both to his landlords defts. 1 to 8 and to deft. 4, filed a suit on 12-4-1949. The pltff. valued the suit for o.-fs. and for jurisdiction at Rs. 800 being the rent fixed under the rent note. It was contended by the defts. that the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction was erroneous, that the learned Junior Civil Judge before whom the suit was filed had no jurisdiction and the valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction being more than Rs. 10,000 the suit should be transferred to the Ct. of the Senior Civil Judge; and the question that I have to consider in this civil revn. appln. is as to whether the learned Junior Civil Judge has jurisdiction to try this suit.

(3.) NOW, under Section 8, Suits Valuation Act, 1887, where in suits other than those referred to in the Court-fees Act, 1870, Section 7 paras. v, vi, and ix, and para. x, Clause (d), c. fs. are payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870, the value as determinable for the computation of c. fs. and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. The rival contentions before me are that of the defts. that the suit falls under Section 7 (v), Court-fees Act and therefore it is taken out of the purview of Section 8, Suits Valuation Act; and the other contention is that it falls under Section 7 (xi) (cc), Court-fees Act and Section 8, Suits Valuation Act applies, and therefore the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction and the c. fs. is the same. In order to determine this point the first and most important question is, what is the nature of the suit ? The proper c. fs. which a pltf. has got to pay is to be assessed, not from the contentions taken up by the defts. not from the written statement filed by them, but from the nature of the suit which he institutes in the Ct. of law, and the nature of the suit is to be determined from the plaint which he puts on file. Clearly the suit filed by the pltf. is a suit for possession under his lease. He has a right to possession from his landlords defts. 1 to 3. There ia an obligation upon the lessor to give quiet possession to the lessee, and as the pltf. has passed a rent note in favour of defts. 1 to 3, he is entitled to possession under the rent note, and therefore he has made defts. 1 to 3 parties to the suit. It so happens that deft. 4 is a tenant of defts. l to 3 holding Over after the expiry of his lease, and as deft. 4 is in actual possession of the property, the pltf. has also made him party to the suit so that he could get possession if a decree is passed in his favour. It is, therefore, clearly a suit for possession, and it is well settled that all general suits for possession, unless they are specifically dealt with, fall under Section 7 (v), and the contention of Mr. Dharap is that this is a suit which falls under Section 7 (xi) (cc) and therefore it does not fall under the general provisions of Section 7 (v ).