SINGESAR MAHTO Vs. MUNARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendant 2 is from the decision of the First Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, reversing the decision of the first court, and, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for redemption against defendant 1 and defendant 2, the present appellant, also.

(2.) Defendant 1 has not appealed against the decree for redemption passed against him in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) The main point pressed, in support of the appeal, by Mr. Prem Lall is that defendant 2 claimed a paramount title, which was not in issue in the suit, and, therefore, the court of appeal below should not have investigated this question of Para-mount title of defendant 2, It was further contended that even if the court of appeal below decided to go into that question, the plaintiff should have been asked to amend his plaint, and, on such amendment the suit would have Keen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the first court because of the value of the property in suit, and, therefore, the plaintiff without paying ad valorem court fee on that valuation could not have got this question, of paramount title of defendant 2 determined by the courts below. These contentions of Mr, Prem Lall are well founded, and, must prevail.