No claim for declaration of title made in the suit.

This Civil Revision Petition raises a question of court-fee and jurisdiction. The suit out of which this petition arises relates to an extent of 48 acres and 55 cents of wet and dry lands situated in Perumbugalore Vattam in Tanjore district, belonging to Annadana Katlai attached to Sri Thyagarajaswami Devasthanam, Tiruvarur. The plaintiff, who is the executive officer of Sri Thyagarajaswami temple appointed by the Hindu Religious Endowments Board, instituted the suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram for recovering the suit land from the defendant, after ejecting him, and for arrears of rent. The basis of the suit is the tenancy created under two lease deeds, one of 11th October, 1906, and the other of 16th April, 1908, both for a period of 11 years. It is alleged in the plaint that the annual rent reserved under these deeds was 40 kalams of paddy for wet lands and Rs. 4 for the dry lands. The plaint recited that in reply to a notice calling upon the defendant to surrender possession of the suit property on the termination of the leases, he set up a false claim to occupancy right in the suit land which he is not entitled to as the suit land is a minor inam not situated in an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. The prayers in the plaint are for recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendant, for arrears of rent, etc. The relief of declaration of title to the suit property is not claimed in the suit. For purposes of court-fees the plaint was valued under section 7, clause (xi) (cc) of the Court-Fees Act and court-fee was paid on the annual rental of the suit lands. The Subordinate Judge agreeing with the objection raised by the court-fee examiner that the suit was inadequately valued on the ground that the allegations in the plaint involved a prayer for a declaration of the plaintiff’s title to the suit property, called upon the plaintiff to value the suit under section 7 (v) of the Court-Fees Act, and pay the court-fee on that basis, and returned the plaint for that purpose. That order is questioned by the plaintiff in. this Civil Revision Petition.

The sole point for determination, therefore is whether it is clause (v) or clause (xi) (cc) of section 7 mat determines the computation of the court-fee in this matter. Section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court-Fees Act applies to suits for the recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over on the determination of the tenancy, while section 7 (v) governs suits for possession of lands, houses and gardens. If the former provision of law applies the court-fee is payable on the amount of annual rent payable in respect of that property whereas if it is the latter, court-fee is payable on the value of the subject-matter. So the question for consideration is, whether the allegation in the plaint bring it under clause (xi) (cc) or clause (v) of section 7 of the Court-Fees Act.

It is argued for the petitioner that though the plaint refers to the claim put forward by the defendant in his notices, these allegations should be treated as superfluous, and the suit is one for the ejectment of the tenant, based on the tenancy created under the lease deeds. He also urges that the recovery of possession in this case does not follow a declaration of title to the suit property, as the success or failure in the suit depends entirely upon the proof of tenancy set up by him in the plaint. On the other hand, it is urged by the learned Government Pleader that though the wording of the plaint indicates that it is a suit by a landlord to evict the tenant after the determination of the tenancy and for recovery of possession of the land, virtually, the relief sought for is one for establishing plaintiff’s title to the suit property and for possession thereof. No doubt, the plaintiff will not be permitted to circumvent the provisions of the Court-Fees Act by the use of a language which would take away the plaint from the ambit of