RAFIQ AHMED Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. It arises out of an interpleader suit. The applicant, Rafiq Ahmad, was one of the defendants in the suit. The suit was filed in the following circumstances: One Mukandi Lal acting as the guardian of minor named Kanhaiya Lal let out a shop on rent to the plaintiff in the suit, namely Babu Ram. Later on, Kanhaiya Lal executed a sale deed in respect of that shop in favour of the applicant, Rafiq Ahmad. In spite of having executed that deed, Kanhaiya Lal claimed that he was the sole proprietor of the shop, alleging that he was a minor at the date of the execution of the sale deed and hence the sale transaction was wholly void. There were thus two rival claimants to the shop occupied by the plaintiff, Babu Ram, who owed Rs. 54 as rent for it for a certain specified period. It was in these circumstances that Babu Ram filed the interpleader suit. He valued the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 7000 and instituted it in the Court of the First Civil Judge at Saharanpur. The applicant raised an objection that the Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to try the suit because the subject-matter of the suit was only the sum of Rs. 54 which was payable by the plaintiff as rent for the shop in question and the suit was consequently within the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Saharanpur. The plaintiff had valued the suit at Rs. 7000 on the ground that the shop in question was worth that amount. The applicant's objection has been repelled by the learned Civil Judge and he has held that he had jurisdiction to try the suit which had been properly valued at Rs. 7000; hence this application in revision.

(2.) THE substance of the argument on behalf of the applicant is that the subject- matter of the suit was only the sum of Rs. 54 which was payable by the plaintiff as rent for the shop in question and hence he should have valued the suit at that amount and it would then have been cognizable by the Munsif, Saharanpur. I am unable to agree with this contention. In an interpleader suit the matter in dispute is the title to a certain property which is claimed by two or more persons. In the present case the right to receive the sum of Rs. 54 as rent for the shop in question cannot be determined until the question of proprietary title to the shop in question is previously decided between Kanhaiya Lal and the applicant. As the learned Civil Judge has pointed out, the proper Court for determining the question of title in respect of the shop in question would be that of the Civil Judge having regard to the value of the shop. I entirely agree with that view. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that it was not open to the plaintiff to have the question of title decided on payment of a small court-fee. THE answer to that argument is that any one of the two rival claimants, i.e., the applicant and Kanhaiya Lal, could have brought a suit for a declaration that he had the proprietary title in the shop in dispute and would have had to pay the same court-fee which the plaintiff in the interpleader suit has paid in the present case. Reference was also made by learned Counsel to Section 8, Suits Valuation Act, but I fail to see how it can benefit the applicant at all. All that Section 8, Suits Valuation Act, provides is that with the exception of certain suits the value of a suit for the purposes of court-fee will be the same as the value for the purposes of jurisdiction. No question relating to the application of Section 8, Suits Valuation Act, arises in this case at all. I think the learned Civil Judge rightly held that the suit had been properly valued and he had jurisdiction to try it. THE result therefore is that I see no reason to interfere and dismiss this application.