JIT BAHADUR SINGH Vs. BABU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for respondents 12 to 15 files an application stating that the land revenue of the property involved in this appeal is about Rs. 1000 a year and that the valuation of the appeal for the purposes of jurisdiction can, therefore, be not less than Rs. 80,000. He, therefore, contends that this is a case which should be disposed of by a Bench of two Judges.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellants urges that he is concerned only with the equity of redemption and that Rs. 2000 is the valuation of the equity of redemption. This is an appeal under the Encumbered Estates Act and it arises out of objections filed under Section 11 of that Act. Objections under Section 11 are filed as to the inclusion of any particular property in the list of properties of the landlord applicant. In the present case the property which was included in the list of the landlords-applicants properties, published in the Gazette, was village Aini Buzurg and not the equity of redemption in that village. Indeed it could not be the equity of redemption because when the stage of Section 19, Encumbered Estates Act is reached, namely, the stage at which an intimation of the property of the landlords-applicants is to be sent to the Collector, all charges will have ceased by reason of the operation of Section 14 (7). A reference to the Gazette in this case shows that the land revenue was about Rs. 1200 but it appears to have been reduced as a result of revision operations and is now stated to be about Rs. 1000. Further in the Gazette it is proprietary rights in the village and not the equity of redemption that is shown as the landlords property. Thus the valuation of the appeal should be Rs. 30,000.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellants is directed to make the amendment within three days. The case will then be treated as a Bench case and necessary action will be taken to deal with it as such. The learned Advocates for the parties agree that the change in the valuation will not make any difference in the court- fee payable since it is a suit of a declaratory nature.