Before addressing the question of title to the property, the plaintiff should be asked to pay ad valorem court fee.

Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. - These appeals arise out of four suits numbered as T. S. nos. 15 to 18 filed by Sheo Shankar Prasad for eviction of different defendants in the suit from four katras. According to his case, the katras belong to him and the defendants are occupying the same as tenants.

2. The plaintiff alleges that rent was paid upto December, 1978 only and the defendants have defaulted thereafter. The plaintiff alleges personal necessity also. The defendants have seriously denied the title of the plaintiff to the katras in question. Although initially the suits were filed as between the landlord and tenant and court fee paid accordingly, but as a result of the defence, the parties led evidence on the question of title to the property, and the Courts have dealt with the question at considerable length. It has been repeatedly held by this Court, and I may mention a recent case on the point, being S. A. 467 of 1981, all owed on 17th April, 1984, that before the Court goes into the question of title not incidentally, but in a full-fledged manner the plaintiff should be asked to pay ad valorem court fee. That has not been done.

3. Mr. R. K. Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that as has been done in several cases including S. A. 467/81, the matter should be remitted back to the trial court with a direction to the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court fee. I am of the view that the course has been rightly suggested.

4. Mr. Verma also advanced several arguments available in second appeal challenging the finding of fact about the offer by the defendants to pay rent to the plaintiff. I do not consider it expedient to go through them in view of the proposed ORDER :of remand.

5. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and both the decisions of the lower appellate court and trial court in the suits are set aside. The suits are remitted back to the trial court where the question of valuation will be gone into by the Court. If the valuation fixed by the Court is found to be beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the plaints shall be returned and, if not, the plaintiff will be asked to pay ad valorem court fee. The evidence already led by the parties shall, in that event, continue to be good evidence, but the parties will be permitted to lead further evidence on the question of title. If the plaintiff is so advised, he may implead such person or persons who according to the defence case, are the landlords. The parties will bear their own costs upto the present stage.