KODAVATI NAGANNA Vs. MATUKUMILLI SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment of the Court was delivered by - This is a revision preferred against the order of the District Munsif, Amalapuram, in I. A. No. 225 of 1955 in O. S. No. 104 of 1953. The 6th defendant is the petitioner before us. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession as against defendant 1 alleging that he had obtained a lease of the suit properties from defendants 2 to 5 for one year 1953-54. He further alleged that the 1st defendant was a prior lessee under a lease granted by defendants 2 to 5 for 1952-53. The 1st defendant is said to be a benamidar for the 6th defendant. The plaintiff claimed possession from the 1st defendant as from a tenant holding over. Defendants 1 and 6 pleaded that they had been given a three-year lease from 1953-56 including the suit year. The plaintiff paid court-fee under Section 7, Clause (XI) (CC) of the Court Fees Act.

(2.) The contention raised by the 6th defendant was that the plaintiff was only a lessee from the owners of the property and if he sought to get possession from a former tenant holding over, his suit could be regarded as a suit for eviction by a landlord as against a tenant. The contention was that such a suit would fall under Section 7 Clause (V) of the Court Fees Act and therefore the court-fee payable would be on the market value of the property. He prayed that he might be permitted to amend the written statement so as to add this plea.

(3.) The Munsiff following a decision of Bell, J., in Ghulam Dastagir Saheb v. Marudai Pillai, 1948-1 Mad LJ 338 , held that in a case of this kind the court-fee payable was only under Section 7, Clause (XI) (cc) of the Court Fees Act and that the court-fee paid was sufficient. He, therefore dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the above order the 6th defendant has come up to this Court.