MULLA MAQBOOL HUSSAIN Vs. SETH CHANDMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision has been filed by the defendant. He had objected in the Trial Court that the suit was undervalued both for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. The objection was upheld by the Trial Court but on appeal that decision has been reversed by the Additional District Judge, Bhopal.

(2.) THE suit was for specific performance of a contract to lease and also delivery of possession of certain premises belonging to the defendant No. 1 and held by the defendants 2 and 3 as lessees. The allegations in the plaint are that all the three defendants had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff that the defendants 2 and 3 would vacate the premises on 16-10-54 and the defendant No. 1 shall then lease them to the plaintiff on terms detailed in the plaint. The plaintiff valued the suit under Section 7 Clause (x) (c) of the Court-fee Act (referring to as the Act in this order) as a suit for the specific performance of a contract of lease. The defendants contended that the suit should have been valued under Section 7 (v) of the Act as the relief for possession of the house is sought.

(3.) THE trial Court found that market value of the house is Rs. 8000/- and this ought to have been the value for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction. The appellate Court held that the suit property fell within Section 7 (x) (c) and was properly valued,