SARJU SINGH Vs. GURDWARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possessory rights in the land described in the plaint. The suit was valued at Rs. 140/- for purposes of jurisdiction and payment of court-fee. The first and this appeal have also been similarly valued. The question for consideration is as to whether the second appeal is competent.

(2.) The first appellate Court had affirmed the decree of the trial Court and! as such the paragraph of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order 1948 applicable to the question under consideration is 32 (1) (b) (ii). According to that provision a second appeal is competent if the value of the suit is rupees one thousand or upwards or the decree of the district Court involves directly some claim to or question respecting property of like value. According to para 2 (vii) of the aforesaid Order, 'value' ire relation to a suit means the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit.

(3.) The first question that arises for determination is as to what is the value of the subject matter of the suit under consideration. The expression 'subject matter of suit' has not been defined in the Court Fees or in the Suits Valuation Acts or in the Civil Procedure Code or ire the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, referred to above. The word 'subject' according to its dictionary meaning means that which is dealt with and the compound word 'subject-matter' is tautological. The expression 'subject-matter of suit' sometimes refers to the concrete property to which the suit relates and sometimes to the title which is asserted in the suit and at others to the relief claimed. The aforesaid expression as used in the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order appears to refer (a) in a money suit to the amount claimed and (b) in a suit relating to property to the right or title of the plaintiff alleged to have been infringed. The relief claimed in a suit is commensurate with and co-related to the invasion of or the threat of invasion to the rights of a plaintiff and in a case in which a plaintiff has the option to value the relief at any amount such value may also be considered to be the value of the subject-matter of the suit. In the case of Chhotala Kalidas v. Laxmidas Mayaram, AIR 1959 Bom 517 the expressions 'the value of the subject-matter of the suit' and 'the value of the relief sought' were, as would appear from the following extract, treated as interchangeable :