- (1.)This is a plaintiff's revision petition in which he complains against the order made by the Munsiff calling upon him to pay ad valorem court-fee on the suit brought by him for a decree for eviction against two defendants, who, according to him, were his tenants. The plaintiff's case was that under a tenancy which was created by his great grand-father the defendants continued to be his tenants and that they are liable to deliver possession of the leased property to him. Both the defendants denied the tenancy and defendant-2 set up his own title to the suit property. But the plaintiff contended that since the suit was brought on the basis of a lease, court-fee was payable only under Sec.41(2) of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, and that no higher court-fee was pavabe by him. But the Munsiff thought that since defendant-2 set up an independent title in himself, court-fee should be paid as if the suit brought by the plaintiff was one for recovery of the property on the basis of his title.
(2.)What was overlooked by the Munsiff was that for purposes of quantification of the court-fee payable, the court should look into the allegations in the plaint whatever may be the allegations in the written statement. The nature of the suit should be judged by what the plaintiff says and not by what the defendant says. Looked at in that way, the suit brought by the plaintiff was clearly one for the recovery of Immovable property from a tenant governed by S.41 (2) of the Mysore Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958.
(3.)So, I set aside the order of the Munsiff and hold that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient. The Munsiff will now proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. No costs.
;