Sen, J. - (1.) These are seven revisional applications under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the orders of the Munsif, 1st Count, Krishnagar, rejecting objections of the contesting defendants as to the valuation of the suit and sufficiency of the court-fees paid on the plaint. The suits in question are Title Suits Nos. 84 to 90 of 1952 of the Munsif, 1st Court, Krishnagar. The defendants are the petitioners in this court. The petitioners as plaintiffs in the first instance instituted certain suits against the opposite parties for their ejectment from the disputed lands alleging that the opposite parties are non-occupancy raiyats, These suits were decreed on compromise. Suits Nos. 84 to 90 were filed by the opposite parties, the raiyats in question, for setting aside the compromise decrees on the declaration that they were fraudulent, illegal and inoperative and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting the decrees into execution. The relief for setting aside each decree was valued at the figure at which the decree sought to be set aside was valued. The original suits by the present petitioners were suits by the landlords under section 7 (xi) (cc), that is, for recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after the determination of a tenancy and the valuation was one year's, rent. In the present case accordingly the relief for setting aside the decree was also valued at one year's rent and the permanent injunction for restraining the principal defendants, that is, the present petitioners, from putting the present decree into execution was valued at Rs. 5 only.
(2.) The petitioners, the contesting defendants in the courts below, objected that the suit had not been correctly valued because the opposite parties were seeking to set aside the decrees in execution of which they might be altogether ejected from the lands in their possession and that, accordingly, the suit should be valued according to the value of the land.
(3.) The learned Munsif rejected the contention and held on the analogy of section 7 (xi) (e) that the suits are correctly valued at the figure of one year's rent and the learned Munsif further observed that it was equitable that in the suits to set aside the compromise decrees the same court-fees should be paid as were paid for the decrees sought to be set aside. On this finding objection of the contesting defendants, the present petitioners, was rejected. The contesting defendants as petitioners have filed these revisional applications contending that the learned Munsif was wrong in deciding that the valuation of the suit and the court-fees were sufficient.;