JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal by a plaintiff under S. 6A, Court-fees Act. The appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge of Agra, claiming several reliefs of which the following is the only relevant one viz. :

"That the plaintiff be delivered possession over the land in dispute marked by letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and shown in red colour in the attached plan by dispossessing defendant 1 therefrom and by the demolition of the constructions made unauthorisedly by her in the portion A, H, G of the said land in dispute."

2. This relief was valued at Rs. 6,000/-. A plea was taken in defence by the defendants that the subject-matter of the suit should be valued at Rs. 60,000/- and not Rs. 6,000/-. A Commissioner was appointed by the Court to assess the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit and, according to his report, the subject-matter should have been valued at Rs. 21,445/-. Both parties lodged objections against the Commissioners report. The learned Civil Judge rejected the objections of both parties in a summary judgment and called upon the appellant to pay the deficiency of Rs. 937-8-0 as calculated on the basis of the Commissioners report. Dissatisfied with this order, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

3. The defendants have filed a cross-objection and their contention is that the market value of the land in question should be fixed at Rs. 60,000/-.

4. The cross-objection may be disposed of first. It is provided by O. 41, R. 22, Civil P.C., that a respondent"though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree may.........take any cross-objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal."

It is, therefore, obvious from the very languages of the statute that a cross-objection can be taken in respect of that matter only which could be agitated by means of an appeal, if the respondent had so chosen to do. In the matter of court-fee, however, law has conferred a right of appeal on the plaintiff alone but not on the defendant. If the respondents had thought fit to prefer an appeal against the decision of the learned Civil Judge, they could not do so. In the circumstances, they cannot file a cross-objection also because that would amount to circumventing the law. If a cross-objection is allowed to be filed in respect of a matter which could not be agitated by means of an appeal, the very purpose of the law will be defeated. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the cross-objection is not maintainable. It is dismissed with costs.

5. Taking up the appeal, the first point to decide is as to which section of the Court-fees Act governs a suit like the present. The parties are agreed that S. 7(v), Court-fees Act will apply to a case like the present, although they differ as to which sub-clause will be applicable to this case. Section 7(v) says that in suits for possession of land, buildings or gardens, the court-fee shall be levied "according to the value of the subject-matter". Thereafter rules have been laid down for determining the value of the subject-matter. The point for decision in the present case is as to what is the subject-matter of the relief in question. It is the land itself or also the buildings that stand thereon ?

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the subject-matter of this relief is the land itself and not the buildings standing thereon. On the contrary, it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that the buildings are also the subject-matter of the dispute and their value should also be taken into consideration. It is, therefore, contended on behalf of the respondents that the present suit falls under S. 7(v)(II), while the learned counsel for the appellant maintains that the suit falls under S. 7(v).

6. If a plaintiff brings a suit stating that he owns certain land and also the buildings standing thereon, that he has been dispossessed by the defendant from the land as well as the buildings and he seeks possession over both the land and the buildi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document