MAQBOOL HUSSAIN Vs. CHANDMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision has been filed by the defendant. He had objected in the Trial Court that the suit was under -valued both for the purpose, of court -fees 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 question of adequacy of court -fees is to be decided on the allegations in the plaint. It does not depend" upon the defence or the facts which may be ultimately proved in the case. It is not at all germane to the question that the defendants 2 and 3 deny the con tract or that they may object to its validity or binding nature for want of consideration or for any other reason, nor is the question whether specific performance can be decreed or not on the finding that there was no contract with the defendants 2 and 3 as alleged. Shri Bhalerao for the petitioner does not dispute this position.