Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Henry Stephen, C.J, Mullick, J.
Ram Ekbal Singh & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Baldeo Singh & Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 23-02-1914
Jurisdiction - Land Dispute - Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 7(v) - The value of the subject-matter of the suit, not the value of the relief sought, determines the jurisdiction of the court in a suit for possession of land.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of possession of land, claiming to be tenants, against the admitted landlords and persons who also claimed to be tenants. The Munsif court decreed the suit on the merits, despite the defendant's objection that the value of the land was over Rs. 1,000 and the Munsif lacked jurisdiction. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that the Munsif was wrong and remanded the case to determine the value of the land.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in his decision. The value of the subject-matter of the suit, not the value of the relief sought, determines the jurisdiction of the court in a suit for possession of land under the Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 7(v).
Issues: Whether the value of the relief sought or the value of the subject-matter of the suit determines the jurisdiction of the court in a suit for possession of land.
Ratio Decidendi: The value of the subject-matter of the suit, which is the value of the land, determines the jurisdiction of the court in a suit for possession of land under the Court Fees Act, 1870 Section 7(v), and not the value of the relief sought.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, the order of the lower court is set aside, and the case is remitted to the lower court to be heard according to law.
JUDGMENT
1. In this case the plaintiffs brought a suit for recovery of possession of land, of which they claimed to be tenants, against the admitted landlords and persons -who also claimed to be tenants. The suit -was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Arrah, and an objection was raised by the defendant that the value of the land, that is the value of the proprietary rights in the land, was over Rs. 1,000 and that the Munsif was, therefore, not competent to try the suit. He held, however, that though the value of the land was over Rs. 1,000, the value of the relief sought was Rs. 126, the amount stated in the plaint, and decreed the suit on the merits. On appeal the point was raised before the Subordinate Judge who held that the Munsif was wrong in looking to the value of the relief sought and had no jurisdiction to try the suit; he, therefore, remanded the case to the Munsif to settle the value of the land.
2. In this he was wrong. The case is governed, as he says, by the Court Fees Act, 1870, Section 7 (v), as this is a suit for the possession of land; but it does not come under any of the descriptions of land given in paragraphs (a) to (d) of the sub-section, as their effect is confined to land in respect of which revenue might be paid, which it could not be in respect of this land regarded as lease-hold land. The value of the subject-matter of the suit is, therefore, the value of the suit, and determines the question of jurisdiction. This is in accordance with the decision in Furzand Ali v. Mohanth Lal Puri 32 C. 268 and is consistent with that in Ram Raj Tewari v. Girnandan Bhagat 15 A. 63 : A.W.N. (1892) 240.
3. The result is that the appeal is allowed, the order of the lower Court is set aside, and the case is remitted to that Court in order that it may be heard according to law. The appellant is entitled to his costs, which are assessed at two gold mohurs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
