RAM KUMAR BHOLA NATH Vs. BANWARILAL NAND KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS a revision application by the plaintiff from the order dated the August 31 1964 of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Delhi. the plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that Shanti Devi and he have been tenants of the premises under or about january 16, 1964, Banwari Lal Defendants in collusion with Shanti Devi took illegal possession of the premises in question and handed over possession of the same to the Rameshwar Dass Jain and Ghamandi Lal, defendants obtaining a resent not in his favor from them. The plaintiff has further averred that the three defendants are in illegal occupation of the premises. He sues the three defendants for possession of the premises in question which is a godown.

(2.) THE plaintiff has paid court-fee on the yearly rental value of the godown under s. 7 (xi) (e) of the raised an objection to the property court-fee that should have been paid by the plaintiff in the suit saying that the allegations in the plaint bring the suit of the plaintiff under S. 7 (v) (e) and so the court free paid should have been on the market value of the godown. The stand taken by the defendants has prevailed with the learned trial Judge who has directed the plaintiff to make amendment in the plaint and to pay court-fee ad valorem on the market value of the godown.

(3.) THE only question for consideration is whether court-fee is payable by the plaintiff under S. 7 (xi) (e) of 7 (v) (e) of act 7 of 1870 in the allegations in the plaint for on the question of court-fee it is those allegation alone that have to be taken into consideration.