MT. JANI Vs. MANDIR SRI BAJRANGDEVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NIAMAT Uilah, President. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondent for ejectment of the defendant -apple from a tenancy holding The deft, contested the pltf's. right to eject and claimed compensation for improvement in the event of a decree for ejectment being passed. The Revenue Officer, Anantnag, in whose Ct. the suit had been instituted, passed a decree for ejectment subject to the pltf paying Rs. 903 -14 -0 as compensation for improvement. The defo. appealed to the Ct. of the Addl. Collector, Kashmir reiterating his defence that the pltf. was not entitled to eject the deft and claiming compensation for improvements to the extent, of Rs. 3000.

(2.) THE Collector was of opinion that the deft. was liable to pay ad valorem court -fee on the difference batween Rs. 903 -14.0 awarded as compensation by the trial Ct. and the sum of Rs. 3000 claimed by him on appeal. Time was given to the deft. to make good the deficiency in the e. f. On failure by the deft. to pay the requisite c. f. the appeal was dismissed. A second appeal to the H C. was equally unsuccessful. The contention before the H. C. was that the relief of enhanced compensation claimed by the deft. being ancillary to the mam purpose of the appeal namely, contesting the pltf's right to eject, the eame c. f. was payable on appeal as bad been paid by the pltf on his plaint. Certain cases seem to have been cited in the H C. in support of this contention but the learned Judges considered that Section 82, State Tenancy Act, indicated that the claim to compensation cannot be regarded as merely ancillary in view of the law prevailing in the State. How far this view is borne out by Section 82, State Tenancy Act felied on by the learned Judges of the H C. will be adverted to later in this judgment. The Board may however, point out that the applt. was in any view of the case entitled to have his appeal heard in so far as it impugned the right of the plif. to eject as he had paid proper c. f. on the relief claimed in the appeal against the decree of the first Ct. directing ejectment.

(3.) COUNSEL on either aide referred, by way of analogy, to cases relating to c. f. on appeal in preemption and redemption cases. In the view of the case the Board have taken, they do not think it necessary to discuss those cases.