ABDUL RAHMAN Vs. BUDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the defendants first party, in a suit for recovery of immovable property.

(2.) The plaintiff's story is that a raiyati settlement of 1.78 acres of land was made with him by the original landlord, that, out of this land, the landlord's right in respect of 1.07 acres, which comprises the subject-matter of this suit, was purchased by the defendants first party, and that, since the purchase, the defendants first party have wrongly dispossessed the plaintiff. He, therefore, seeks recovery of possession, and has paid court-fee under Section 7, Clause (xi) Sub-clause (e), Court-fees Act. The objection of the defendants first party is that the suit raises a question of title and should be valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction under Section 7, Clause (iv) and, on this valuation is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif.

(3.) The case came before me sitting singly, and I referred it to a Division Bench in view of a decision of Ross J. in Krishna Chandra v. Raja Mahakur, 5 Pat. 208 : (A.I. R. (13) 1926 Pat. 251) with which I found myself unable to agree.