Decided on July 08,1953



Chandra Reddy, J. - (1.) This petition raises a question relating to court-fee. The petitioners instituted a suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit house alleging that the defendants who were let into possession of the suit house as licensee refused to vacate the same when demanded. They valued the suit under Section 7(xi)(cc), Court-fees Act. The recitals in the plaint were that in a partition between the plaintiffs and their brother the suit house was allotted to the share of the latter, that their brother allowed the defendants to Use the suit house as licensees, that after the death of their brother they became entitled to the property and that in spite of the revocation of the licence the defendants refused to surrender possession of the same to them and denied the plaintiff's right.
(2.) On an objection taken by the Court-fee examiner that the suit was not correctly valued, the question was gone into by the District Munsif and it was decided by him that the value had to be computed for purposes of court-fee under Section 7 (v)(e) and not under Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the trial Court called upon the plaintiff to give the market value of the property and pay 'ad valorem' court-fee on that basis.
(3.) In this revision petition, the order of the District Munsif is sought to be revised. In support of the petition Mr. Arayamudha Aiyangar urges that the view of the trial Court is erroneous and that the provision of law applicable to the present case is either Section 7(xi)(cc) or Schedule II, Article 17(B), Court-fees Act and relies on two decisions, one of Allahabad High Court in - 'Ramraj Tewari v. Girnandan Bhagat', 15 All 63 (A) and another of Patna High Court in - 'Mt. Barkatunnisa Begum v. Mt. Kaniza Fatma', AIR 1927 Pat 140 (B). A reference to the provisions of the Act shows that Section 7(xi)(cc) cannot have any application to a suit to recover possession of the property from a licensee. It provides a cheap remedy "for recovery of immoveable property from a tenant, including a tenant holding over after the determination of a tenancy". A licensee. cannot be included in the term "tenant". II fail to see how Section 7(xi)(cc) of the Act has any bearing on the present case. There is therefore no support for this argument either on a plain reading of the section or by way of decided cases. In fact the two decisions relied on. by him furnish an answer to his contention and I will refer to them shortly.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.