BHARAT NATH MITRA Vs. SASHI BHUSAN BERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was obtained by the Plaintiff, of a title suit under the following circumstances. He instituted a suit for recovery of khas possession of some lands described in the schedule of the plaint on the allegation that the lands were formerly held by one Aswini Kumar Bose as a tenant under the tour of the Plaintiff at an annual rental of Rs. 11-1-6 and that the tenant having abandoned the holding without making any arrangement for payment, the Plaintiff had become untitled to get khas possession thereof. Accordingly, the Plaintiff claims khas possession of the disputed lands. The suit was valued at Rs. 185-10 both for the purposes of valuation of the suit and for the purpose of payment of court-fees and, accordingly, court-fees were paid upon the plaint upon a valuation of Rs. 185-10. It appears that an objection as to the sufficiency of the court-fees paid upon the plaint was taken by the Defendants and an issue to that effect was framed. This issue was tried by the learned Munsif, first court, Howrah, before whom the suit was pending as a preliminary issue and the learned Munsif came to the finding that the court-fees should have been paid upon the market value of the suit properties and the learned Munsif made an order that there should be an enquiry under Section 8C of the Court-fees Act for ascertaining the market value of the disputed properties. Against this order the Plaintiff of the trial court has come up in revision.

(2.) Mr. Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff, contended that the learned Munsif acted without jurisdiction by directing an enquiry under Section 8C of the Court-fees Act in as much as the suit is a suit for recovery of khas possession of the disputed lands, and there being no prayer for declaration of Plaintiff's title to the disputed lands, the suit is governed by Section 7(v)(c) of the Court-fees Act which prescribes payment of court-fees upon 15 times the net profits which have arisen from the lands during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. Mr. Banerjee contended that the profits which the Plaintiff derived from the lands were calculated on rental basis at Rs. 11-1-6 per annum. He, therefore, argued that the Plaintiff was justified in paying court-fees upon 15 times the annual rent of the disputed lands. Upon calculation, however, I find that 15 times of Rs. 11-1-6 do not make up the sum of Rs. 185-10. Mr. Banerjee, however, satisfied me after showing the record-of-rights that the amount entered therein as rent is Rs. 12 and an amount of 6 annas has been recorded as cesses. So the Plaintiff paid court-fees upon 15 times of Rs. 12-6. As the prayer for declaration of Plaintiff's title to the disputed lands is conspicuous by its absence, the suit cannot be governed by Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act, and the Plaintiff cannot be directed to pay court-fees on the amount at which the relief sought is valued by him.

(3.) Apparently, when the learned Munsif directed an enquiry to be made about the market value of the lands under Section 8C of the Court-fees Act, he had in his contemplation Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-fees Act. In my judgment this was a misconception of the scope of the suit on the part of the learned Munsif.