The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the court depends on the allegations in the plaint, and the valuation of the suit determines the court's jurisdiction. Additionally, an unregistered possessory mortgage does not create any interest in the property, allowing the party to fall back on their title to claim possession.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the appellant above named being original defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 40/87 decided on 13th August, 1984 by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Godhara, who directed the present appellant and other defendants, who are respondents Nos. 1 to 3 before this Court to hand over the peaceful possession of the suit property to respondent no. 4 original plaintiff on or before 15th September, 1984. The trial Court also directed the present appellant and respondent nos. 1 to 3 to pay the costs of the respondent no. 4 and to bear their own costs in the suit. The trial Court further directed the respondent no. 4 to deposit the amount of Rs. 6000. 00 in the court on or before 15th September, 1984 and it was further directed that the appellant and respondent nos. 1 to 3 would be at liberty to withdraw the said amount after handing over the possession of the suit property to respondent no. 4 original plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case may be, briefly stated are as under : (1) respondent no. 4 had instituted the aforesaid suit before the learned Civil Judge against the appellant as well as respondent nos. 1 to 3 for possession of a property situated in the Harsol Vada, bearing City Survey No. 621, admeasuring 160 yards. Respondent no. 4 claimed to be the owner of the said property. (2) it appears from the pleadings, the respondent no. 4 has taken up a contention in the suit before the Trial Court that on 31st May, 1971, deceased Vrajlal had sold the aforesaid property of City Survey No. 621 in the sum of Rs. 27,000. 00 to respondent no. 4 and defendant no. 1, who is appellant before this Court in this appeal had attested the sale deed. Since the date of execution of the sale deed, the present respondent no. 4 was in possession of the suit property. That the respondent no. 4 had also become the owner thereof by virtue of the said sale deed. That mutation entry was also entered in the City Survey record and Municipal record in the name of respondent no. 4. (3) thereafter, deceased Vrajlal had given a sum of Rs. 6000. 00 to respondent no. 4 on 7. 6. 1997, and respondent no. 4 had executed an unregistered possessory mortgage in favour of deceased Vrajlal and in turn it was agreed that the respondent no. 4 would not charge rent for the property being possessed by the deceased Vrajlal. So on one hand, respondent no. 4 had not to charge rent and on the other hand, deceased Vrajlal had not to charge interest on the said amount. It was further agreed that the aforesaid amount was required to be refunded to respondent no. 4 within five years from the date of execution and deceased Vrajlal had to hand over the possession of the said property at that point of time. (4) the respondent no. 4 contended that on completion of the said period of five years, she issued notices to the appellant as well as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 stating that they could receive the amount of Rs. 6000. 00 and possession of the said property be handed over to the respondent no. 4. That since the said amount was not taken by the appellant as well as respondent nos 1 to 3, the respondent no. 4 instituted the aforesaid suit for possession of the said property. (5) the suit was registered and summons was issued to the appellant as well as respondent nos. 1 to 3. The suit was resisted by the said defendants and in written statement, it was contended that the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. That the said defendants were the tenants in respect of the suit property. That the suit was not maintainable and that it was barred by law of limitation. It was their contention that the document of possessory mortgage was a shame document and it was a contract of lease and therefore, the said defendants were tenants of the said property and therefore, the Civil Court cannot entertain the suit against the said defendants. (6) looking to the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Judge had framed necessary issues at Ex. 21. After a