DEOSTHAN MATH ALONYA BABA THROUGH SARBARAKAR GOVINDGIR GURU SURATGIR GOSAI Vs. RAMDAYAL BALGOVIND KALWAR AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for possession. The plaintiffs-respondents' case was as under: A previous sarbarakar (trustee) of the defendant temple had leased the suit fields to Balgovind, father of plaintiff 1 and uncle of plaintiffs 2 and 3, by lease deed dated 17th August 1878. After Balgovind's death the plaintiffs had been in possession of the fields till '5th May 1936 when they were illegally dispossessed by the defendant. They were tenants of the defendant temple and were entitled to possession but were illegally ejected from the fields by their landlord. The plaintiffs valued their suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction on the annual rent under Section 7(xi)(e), Court-fees Act. The defendant denied the lease by the previous sarbarakar. He also denied the authority of the previous sarbarakar to grant a lease of the nature that was granted, viz., a perpetual one, and stated that in no case could it be said that that lease was binding on the present sarbarakar. The defendant denied the possession of the plaintiffs over the property in suit or that they were the tenants thereof at any time. The defendant's allegation was that the suit land was let out to one Jaigovind, who was the sub-tenant of defendant from year to year and was in possession thereof, that the defendant sued this Jaigovind for possession and obtained a decree against him, and by virtue of that decree he obtained possession from Jaigovind.

(2.) THE suit in which the decree was obtained was Civil Suit No. 191A of 1985 decided on 30th April 1986. The defendant stated that the plaintiffs not being the tenants of the fields in suit were not entitled to institute a suit on a court fee calculated on the annual rent under Section 7(xi)(e), Court-fees Act, and that if they wished to have their suit for possession against the defendant they ought to pay court-fee on the full value of the land, which was Rs. 8000. As the scope of a suit between landlord and tenant is of a limited nature and no questions of title other than that of the relationship of landlord and tenant are allowed to be agaitated in the case, (Krishna Chandra Gauntia v. Raja Mahakur the trial Court framed issues, which were called preliminary as they went to the root of the case. The issues were as under: 1. Does there exist a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? 2. What is the valuation of the suit land for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction?

(3.) THE finding of the lower appellate Court that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit fields as tenants of the defendant till the date of dispossession is to be found in Para. 6 of its judgment. That finding is attacked before me as being against law and against the pleadings in the case. This is a ease in which the plaintiffs allege that a perpetual lease was granted to Balgovind, their predecessor-in-titlo, in 1878 by a previous Sarbarakar of the defendant Math. It is also clear from the allegations in the plaint itself that after that Sarbarakar there have been several Sarbarakars and that the present Sarbarakar is Govindgir. The lease was granted by Umraogir in favour of Balgovind; after Umraogir Brijlalgir was the Sarbarakar, and after his death Suratgir became the Sarbarakar, and after his death Govindir became the Sarbarakar. There is absolutely no allegation in the plaint that the Sarbarakar for the time being who granted the lease in favour of Balgovind granted it for legal necessity so as to.be binding on the successive Sarbarakars; nor is there any allegation that the subsequent Sarbarakars - or for the matter of that Govindgir the present Sarbarakar-ever recognized this lease granted by Umraogir either by allowing the plaintiffs to continue in possession or by receiving rent therefor. The allegation of the plaintiffs that they were in possession of the suit lands till May 1936 is also not made by the plaintiffs in a manner as to indicate that they were in possession as tenants. It is only inferentially that we have to say that the plaintiffs were claiming to be in possession as tenants because they have valued their claim for possession as between landlord and tenant. The defendant by his written statement denied the tenancy of the plaintiffs, and in Para. 2 he stated: "The plaintiffs have not stated as to what was the necessity for Umraogir to give the alleged lease."