KRUSHNA CHANDRA TRIPATHY Vs. LOKANATH MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS' case is that they were occupancy raiyats of the disputed lands, under defendants 1 to 6 who were Tanki Baheldars (tenure-holders ). The tenure vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act in 1963. The plaintiffs are therefore occupancy raiyats under the State. Despite this averment the plaintiffs however valued the suit on the footing that it was a suit between the tenants and their landlords defendants 1 to 6. The defendants asserted that the market value of the disputed lands would be about Rs. 30,000, and the Munsif's court, Puri having jurisdiction to try suits upto the value of Rs. 4,000 had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Munsif determined the question of valuation as a preliminary issue and held that the market value of the lands is about Rs. 10,000 and that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. He accordingly directed return of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 10 C. P. C. The learned subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the adverse order. Against the confirming order of the lower appellate Court this Civil revision has been filed.

(2.) MR. Mohanty contends that the suit has been framed for recovery of the lands in which the plaintiffs claim occupancy right from the landlords defendants 1 to 6, and accordingly it is only the occupancy right which would be valued, and the market value of the lands would not determine the jurisdiction of the Court. He places reliance on Section 7, Clause (xi), Sub-clause (e) and Schedule II, Article 5 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, as amended in Orissa. Section 7 (xi) (e) runs thus :-

(3.) THE learned courts below made a confusion in equating the value of the occupancy right with the entire proprietary right. From the entire proprietary right, the right of the landlord must be deduced to determine the value of the occupancy right. Doubtless the value of the landlords' interest is very little compared to the interest of the occupancy raiyats. But all the same the legal concept is to be made clear regarding the difference between the value of the occupancy right and that of the entire proprietary right. In Upendra Chandra v. Satcouri Dhar, AIR 1914 Cal 530 the aforesaid distinction has been pointed out.