MAHMADALLI ISABHAI Vs. ABDUL RAHIM FUNUMULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is conceded that the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council is not Rs. 10,000 or upwards, but it is contended that the decree or final order involves indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of like amount or value. The decree passed in the case is that the plaintiff is declared entitled to hold the laud in suit on the same terms as before, all his life, that is to say, until the death of Sarafalli Mahamadalli, or until due surrender by him, during his life-time by a proper and sufficient notice. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the factory erected by him on the land is worth more than Rs. 10,000. The learned District Judge has found that the value of the buildings erected on the land is Rs. 25,620 and the loss to be sustained . by the applicant if the whole construction is removed is somewhere near Rs. 19,000, but he held that the loss to be caused in this way could not be said to be the value of the property indirectly involved, and that though it might be the consequence of the decree passed in the suit, it was not property involved in the suit directly or indirectly, and therefore came to the conclusion that the value of the property involved indirectly was only Rs. 4,000.

(2.) In Mnlla's Civil Procedure Code, 8 Edition, page 298, it is stated that where the plaintiff obtained a decree for possession of a piece of land worth Rs. 2,000 and the result of the decree was to oblige the defendant to remove buildings worth more than Rs. 10,000 which the defendant had built on the land, leave was granted to appeal to the Privy Council. The reference to the case of Sraemuth Davasikamoney Pandarasannadhi V/s. Palaniappa Chettiar (1910) I.L.R. 34 Mad. 535 does not support the proposition thus laid down. On the other hand, in the case of Dhanna Mal V/s. Moti Sagar (1923) 6 L.L.J. 78, it was held that where the subject-matter in dispute in the case was merely the nature of a tenancy, the value of which was Rs. 2,000, there was no right of appeal to the Privy Council although the tenancy affected property worth over Rs, 10,000.

(3.) In the present case, the suit was brought by the plaintiff, the tenant, to obtain specific performance of the oral agreement of fifty-one years lease or in the alternative to have it declared that under the terms of the lease, Exhibit 67, he was entitled to remain in possession of the land in suit on payment of the rent of Rs. 100 a year as long as he pleased, or for a further period of twenty-five years after April 11, 1918, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing him in the enjoyment of the plaint land. The decree that was eventually confirmed by the High Court was as follows :- The plaintiff is declared entitled to hold the land in suit on the same terms as before, all his life, that is to say, until the death of Sarafalli Mohamadalli, or until due surrender by him, during his life-time by a proper and sufficient notice. The rest of the plaintiff's claim is rejected. The cross-objections are dismissed.