JUDGMENT :- This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possessory rights in the land described in the plaint. The suit was valued at Rs. 140/- for, purposes of jurisdiction and payment of court-fee. The first and this appeal have also been similarly valued. The question for consideration is as to whether the second appeal is competent.

2. The first appellate Court had affirmed the decree of the trial Court and as such the paragraph of the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order 1948 applicable to the question under consideration is 32 (1) (b) (ii). According to that provision a second appeal is competent if the value of the suit is rupees one thousand or upwards or the decree of the district Court involves directly some claim to or question respecting property of like value. According to para 2 (vii) of the aforesaid Order, value in relation to a suit means the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit.

3. The first question that arises for determination is as to what is the value of the subject matter of the suit under consideration. The expression subject matter of suit has not been defined in the Court Fees or in the Suits Valuation Acts or in the Civil Procedure Code or in the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order, referred to above. The word subject according to its dictionary meaning means that which is dealt with and the compound word subject-matter is tautological.

The expression subject-matter of suit sometimes refers to the concrete property to which the suit relates and sometimes to the title which is asserted in the suit and at others to the relief claimed. The aforesaid expression as used in the Himachal Pradesh (Courts) Order appears to refer (a) in a money suit to the amount claimed and (b) in a suit relating to property to the right or title of the plaintiff alleged to have been infringed. The relief claimed in a suit is commensurate with and co-related to the invasion of or the threat of invasion to the rights of a plaintiff and in a case in which a plaintiff has the option to value the relief at any amount such value may also be considered to be the value of the subject-matter of the suit. In the case of Chhotalal Kalidas v. Laxmidas Mayaram, AIR 1959 Bom 517 the expressions the value of the subject-matter of the suit and the value of the relief sought were, as would appear from the following extract, treated as interchangeable :

"Evidently under section 7 (iv) (c) the plaintiffs have the right to put their own valuation on the subject-matter of the suit and it is on the valuation put by the plaintiffs that the court-fee is exigible. By section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act 1887 in suits falling under section 7 (iv) (c) the value determinable for the computation of court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction are to be the same; that is, the valuation adopted by the plaintiff for computing the court-fees governs the jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit is instituted".

4. In the instant case the plaint allegations were that the plaintiff-appellant was the tenant of the land described in the plaint and was in possession of the same and the defendants-respondents were interfering with his possession. On the aforesaid allegations it was claimed that an injunction in perpetuity be issued to the respondents restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff-appellant over the land in suit. Under section 7 (iv) (d) of the Court Fees Act the plaintiff-appellant had the option to value the relief at any amount be liked and he valued it at Rs. 140/-. Normally the value of the subject-matter of the suit should also be considered to be Rs. 140/-. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has now stated that the value of the subject-matter of the suit is Rs. 1,000/-. I enquired of him as to what was the basis for his saying so or for the valuation of the relief in the plaint and he frankly sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document