The central legal point established in the judgment is the classification of a suit as specific performance or possession, based on the nature of the claim and the relevant provisions of the Court-Fees Act and the Specific Relief Act.

1. This matter arises out of a suit filed by the first respondent in the Court of the District Munsif of Razole for specific performance of a contract of lease entered into with the petitioner, for possession of the properties, and for the recovery of mesne profits. The property in suit had belonged to the petitioners father who in May, 1913, granted a lease of it for twenty years to the second and third respondents and to the fathers of the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents. The lessor died sometimes before 1929 and the property devolved on the petitioner. On the 2nd November, 1929, the petitioner granted a lease of the properties to the first respondent for twenty years, the period to commence from 2nd June, 1935. A deed of lease was drawn up, duly executed and registered. The first respondent averred in his plaint that the petitioner had in collusion with the other defendants (respondents 2 to 15 and one Malay Venkataratnam, the fifteenth defendant) put the defendants into possession of the property and had refused his demand for possession. He treated the suit as being one for specific performance of the contract of lease and stamped his plaint on the amount of one years rent under the provisions of Section 7(x)(c) of the Court-Fees Act. The petitioner contended that the suit was really one for possession and that it should be stamped in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(v) of the Act, that is, on the value of the property leased. The value which the first respondent had placed on the property in suit was Rs. 2,000. The District Munsif held an inquiry into the question of value and found that the property was worth not less than Rs. 8,000. This finding has not been challenged. If the suit is to be regarded as one for possession and not as one for specific performance, it cannot be tried in the Court of the District Munsif. The Court having jurisdiction will be that of the Subordinate Judge. The District Munsif decided that the suit should be classified as a suit for specific performance and therefore held that it had been properly stamped. In coming to this conclusion he relied on the decision of this Court on Sundara Ramanujam Naidu v. Sivalingam Pillai AIR1924Mad360 . The petitioner filed an application for revision of this order. The matter came before Varadachariar, J., who considered that observations in Sundara Ramanujam Naidu v. Sivalingam Pillai AIR1924Mad360 , did lend support for the conclusion arrived at by the District Munsif and referred the matter to a Bench. This Bench has been constituted to decide the question.

2. In Sunday a Ramanujam Naidu v. Sivalingam Pillai AIR1924Mad360 , Krishnan and Venkatasubba Rao, JJ., held that a suit to compel the defendant to execute a sale deed in pursuance of an agreement for sale was a suit for specific performance within the meaning of Section 7(x)(c)of the Court-Fees Act and did not become a suit for possession by reason of the addition of a prayer for possession. In the course of his judgment Krishnan, J., observed:

The delivery of possession is a part of the specific performance of a contract of sale unless the terms thereof show that the vendee was not under an obligation to deliver possession. The claim for delivery of possession is as much a part of specific performance as the claim for the payment of the price is, when the seller brings the suit for specific performance

3. He also observed that when the prayer for possession was allowed to be added the suit did not cease to be one for specific performance and become a suit for possession or combination of both suits--under the Court-Fees Act. In that case there was only one defendant and there was no question of the property being in the possession of a stranger to the contract. The Allahabad High Court in Muhi-ud-din Ahmad Khan v. Majlis Rai I.L.R.(1884) 6 All. 231 and Nihal Singh v. Sewa Ram I.L.R.(1916) 38 All. 292 also held that a suit for specific performance carried with it the right to claim