JUDGMENT

S. N. Singh, J.-. This revision has come before us for decision on a reference made by Mr. Justice S. K. Verma.

2. The facts giving rise to the present revision are that the plaintiff applicant claiming to be the Mutawalli of Waqf Alal-aulad instituted a suit for three reliefs: Relief (a) was for the cancellation of two Theka deeds a dated 4th March, 1958 and 19th September, 1960 executed by one Hafiz Habidul Rahman in favour of the defandant in respect of the grove in dispute. Relief (b) was for the ejectment of the Thekedar from the grove land in dispute, and relief (c) was recovery of Rs. 226/- as damages for use and occupation for the last three years. The allegations made in the plaint are that the two Theka deeds were executed by the Mutawalli beyond his power, that the two Thekas could not be executed for a period more than a year and that since they were for more than a year they were null and void. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction as follows :

1. Rs. 75/- the amount of one year's Theka rent for the purposes of relief (a)

2. Rs. 75/- the amount of one year's Theka money for relief (b) and

3. Rs. 225/- for relief (c) .

Court fees were also paid on these amounts.

3. The defendant contested the suit inter alia on the grounds that the suit is under valued and that the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. A commission was issued to a vakil commissioner who reported that the value of the disputed grove was much more than, Rs. 5,000/-. Two preliminary issues were framed in the case :

(1) Whether the suit is under-valued ? If so has in court no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this suit ?

(2) Whether the court fee is in (Sic)

The Munsif decided the issue about jurisdiction and held that the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction could not be made on annual rental but is to be calculated in accordance with the market value of the property involved in the suit. He also held that the value of the property in dispute was more than Rs. 5,000/-. So he directed the return of the plaint for presentation to the proper court.

5. An appeal was preferred against this decision and the appellate judge has also affirmed the decision of the Munsif. It has given rise to the present revision. When this revision came up for hearing it was referred to a larger Bench. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the allegations in the plaint. We are of opinion that the plaintiff in this case has correctly valued the reliefs (b) and (c) for the purposes of jurisdiction but has erred in valuing relief (a) . This is a composite suit for cancellation of documents which is covered by Section 7 (IV-A) of the Court Fees Act and for possession by a landlord against a tenant which is covered by Section 7 (xi) (cc) of the Court Fees Act. In such a suit the relief has to be valued in accordance with the amount of rent payable for the year next before the date of presenting the plaint. The subject. matter in such a suit is not the proprietary right in the land in dispute. It is only the tenancy right which is in dispute and possession is claimed against a person who claims tenancy right in the property in dispute. It was urged on behalf of the defendant opposite party that in the instant case the plaintiff has treated the defendant as a trespasser and that accordingly this is not a suit by a landlord against a tenant but is a suit by the proprietor of the grove against the defendant trespasser. We are unable to accept this contention.

On the allegations in the plaint the Thekas were undoubtedly valid for one year. So the Thekedar was in lawful possession for one year. This aspect shall not be overlooked in deciding this case.

6. In the case of Mohan Lal v. Bhuteshwar, A.I.R. 1925 Alld. sic a suit was instituted against a tenant for possession of the ground of forfeiture, treating the defendant as a trespasses. It was held that the value of the suit for possession of the leased propert