The main legal point established is the interpretation of possession as that of a licensee and the proper valuation under the Court-fees Act, 1870, based on the nature of the license and its termination.

1. The instant second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant/defendant No.1, against whom the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had instituted a suit for permanent injunction and possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, however, the first appellate Court has allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, it has decreed the plaintiff's suit by the impugned judgment and decree dated 29-4-2008. At the time of filing of the suit on 14-8-2003, the plaintiff father was 72 years of age, thus, at present, he is aged about 79 years. Defendant No.1/ appellant is the son of the plaintiff/respondent No.1. The plaintiff/ 'respondent No.1 shall hereinafter be referred as 'the father' and defendant No.1/appellant shall hereinafter be referred as 'the son'.

2. The father instituted the present suit against the son on the pleadings that he was working in the Bhilai Steel Plant and has purchased the suit house bearing No.MIG-2/210 situated at Hudco, Shahid Koushal Nagar, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and District Durg in the year 1988 from his salary income and, thus, the suit house is his self- acquired property. He was residing in the suit house, which is described in Schedule A with the plaint. He has two sons and one daughter and all are married. Defendant No.1/appellant is the second son of the plaintiff/'respondent No.1. According to the father, the son came to him on 13-10-1999 and requested the father to allow him to stay in the suit house, however, later on, he started quarreling and assaulted the father and expelled him from the suit house, as a result of which, the father is now residing at the present address. The son is pressurizing the father to hand over and transfer the suit house in his favour and harassing him for which a report was lodged by the father with the Kotwali Police Station. After lodging of the report, the son is abusing and threatening the father and has stopped his entry in the suit house saying that if he enters the house, he shall be killed. These facts have been stated in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the plaint. According to the father, he is a cardiac patient and has been rendered homeless by his son and that he is presently residing in a lodge and that in spite of all persuasions, wiser sense is not prevailing on the son and he has refused to hand over possession of the suit house to the father.

3. The son filed his written statement and stated that he has also contributed in purchasing the suit house and is residing in the suit house in the capacity of a son and that all adverse allegations made in the plaint are denied. According to the son, the father did not take care in bringing him up and he was expelled from the house during his childhood. According to the son, since the first son, i.e., his elder brother was not taking care of the father, he was called by the father to reside with him and that he has spent substantial amount in the repairs of the suit house. It was further stated that the father has been instigated by the elder brother, i.e., the first son of the father and, therefore, the present suit has been filed to harass the son. It was further stated in the written statement that the suit has not been valued properly inasmuch as the suit should have been valued as per the market value of the property for recovery of possession.

4. The trial Court decided the additional issue No.2 regarding valuation and payment of Court- fee against the plaintiff. While deciding issue No.1, the trial Court found that the suit house belongs to the father but the suit was dismissed for improper valuation and non payment of adequate Court-fee.

5. The first appeal filed by the father has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree. On the question of valuation and payment of Court- fee, the first appellate Court, in paragraphs 17 and 18 of its judgme