Back
Allahbad High Court
J.M.LAL
Mahabir Prasad - Appellant
Versus
Shamshuddin Ansari - Respondent
Decided On : 03/02/1971
COURT FEES ACT - SECTION 7(XI)(E) AND 7(V)(II) - SUIT FOR POSSESSION OF SHOP - VALUATION FOR JURISDICTION - MARKET VALUE OF SHOP TO BE CONSIDERED - TENANCY RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF NOT RELEVANT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a tenant of a shop, filed a suit for recovery of possession against the landlord and three other defendants who were his erstwhile partners in the business. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had colluded with the landlord and persuaded him to recognize them as tenants in supersession of the plaintiff's tenancy rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit did not fall under Section 7(XI)(E) of the Court Fees Act, as the defendants were not inducted by the landlords but were already in possession of the premises and sought the help of the landlord as a subterfuge to justify their possession after the alleged dissolution of partnership. The court further held that the suit fell within the scope of Section 7(V)(II) of the Court Fees Act, and the market value of the shop was to be considered for the purposes of valuation for jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit falls under Section 7(XI)(E) or 7(V)(II) of the Court Fees Act. 2. How the property should be valued for the purposes of Suits Valuation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 7(XI)(E) of the Court Fees Act applies to suits between landlord and tenant to recover the occupancy of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord. In the present case, the defendants were not inducted by the landlords but were already in possession of the premises and sought the help of the landlord as a subterfuge to justify their possession after the alleged dissolution of partnership. Therefore, the suit did not fall under Section 7(XI)(E). 2. Section 7(V)(II) of the Court Fees Act applies to suits for possession of land, buildings or gardens. In the present case, the suit was for possession of a shop, which is a building. Therefore, the suit fell within the scope of Section 7(V)(II). 3. Section 4 of the Suits Valuation Act provides that the suits falling under Section 7(V) of the Court Fees Act shall be valued for the purposes of jurisdiction at the market value of the property involved in or affected by the relief sought. In the present case, the property affected by the relief sought was the shop itself. Therefore, the market value of the shop had to be taken into consideration for the purposes of valuation for jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The revision was partly allowed. The court directed that the suit shall be valued at Rupees 3150/- for the purposes of jurisdiction and if the same is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Munsif, he shall return the plaint for presentation to proper court. If it is within his jurisdiction, he shall proceed further in the matter.
2. The brief facts of the case were that the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed his plaint with the allegation that he was a tenant of a shop situate in the town of Barabanki holding it from the father of defendant-opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 and that he used to carry on his cloth business in this shop. The rent of this shop, according to the plaintiffs, was Rs. 22.50 p.m. The plaintiff further alleged that he had taken the defendant-applicants Mahabir Prasad and Shankar Lal as well as the defendant-opposite party No. 4 Banshi Dhar as partners with him in his cloth business and in that capacity they began to sit on the shop in question. The partnership was dissolved but after that these persons did not give up their possession. On the other hand they colluded with the landlord and persuaded him to recognise them as his tenants in supersession of the tenancy rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff treating himself to have been dispossessed from this shop filed the suit for recovery of possession against the landlord as well as the other three defendants who were his erstwhile partners in the business.
3. On these facts it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that this suit would fall under Cl. (xi) (e) which relates to suits between landlord and tenant to recover the occupancy of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord. On behalf of the defendant-applicants it was contended that this suit cannot fall under this category as the suit was not filed only against the landlords. In this connection reliance was placed on behalf of the applicants on a decision of Madras High Court in Kuppuswami Pillai v. Taj Fraksha Thaikkal Estate, (AIR 1946 Mad 322). In this case it was held that a suit for possession by plaintiff alleging that he is entitled to occupancy rights in the land and that the first defendant landholder is not entitled to lease the land to defendant 2 and to put him in possession does not fall under Section 7 (xi) (e) as the suit is not only against landholder but also against another person who according to plaintiff is in the position of a trespasser. The view taken by some other High Courts on this point is different. In Secretary of State v. Dinshaw Navroji, (AIR 1925 Sind 275) it was held that sub-section (xi) refers to suits between the landlord and the tenant. It does not restrict such suits between the landlord and the tenant only. There is, therefore no reason why this sub-section should be limited to suits where the landlord and the tenant alone are parties and should not apply to a suit, where in order to avoid any unnecessary delay in execution proceedings a person inducte
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
