T. C. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition for revision has been filed by the defendant. He had objected in the Trial Court that the suit was undervalued both for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. The objection was upheld by the Trial Court but on appeal that decision has been reversed by the Additional District Judge, Bhopal.

( 2 ) THE suit was for specific performance of a contract to lease and also delivery of possession of certain premises belonging to the defendant No. 1 and held by the defendants 2 and 3 as lessees. The allegations in the plaint are that all the three defendants had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff that the defendants 2 and 3 would vacate the premises on 16-10-54 and the defendant No. 1 shall then lease them to the plaintiff on terms detailed in the plaint. The plaintiff valued the suit under Section 7 Clause (x) (c) of the Court-fee Act (referring to as the Act in this order) as a suit for the specific performance of a contract of lease. The defendants contended that the suit should have been valued under Section 7 (v) of the Act as the relief for possession of the house is sought.

( 3 ) THE trial Court found that market value of the house is Rs. 8000/- and this ought to have been the value for purposes of Court-fees and jurisdiction. The appellate Court held that the suit property fell within Section 7 (x) (c) and was properly valued,

( 4 ) THE question of adequacy of court-fees is to be decided on the allegations in the plaint. It does not depend upon the defence or the facts which may Be ultimately proved in the case. It is not at all germane to the question that the lefendants 2 and 3 deny the contract or that they may object to its validity or binding nature for want of consideration or for any other reason nor is the question whether specific performance can be decreed or not on the finding that there was no contract with the defendants 2 and 3 as alleged, Shri Bhalerao for the petitioner does not dispute this position.

( 5 ) THE contention advanced by him is that the alleged contract amounts to two separate contracts, one with the defendant No. 1 in respect of the lease and the other with the other defendants who are said to have agreed to vacate the premises. It is in respect of this second contract that he contends that the suit should be separately valued as a suit for possession. Shri Sanghi for the respondent contends that what he wants is pecific performance of the contract of lease and he relief of possession is only incidental to it. According to his argument, the contract with the defendants 2 and 3 cannot be treated as independent.

( 6 ) I have no doubt that the contention raised by Shri Sanghi is correct on the allegations in the plaint. It is the contract of lease by the defendant No. 1 which is sought to be enforced. The relief of possession is implicit in the specific performance of such a contract and there would have been no difficulty in accepting the plaintiffs contention if the suit were for specific performance and possession against the defendant No. 1 alone. It is the existence of the other defendants as parties to the contract which creates a complication. Even then, it is clear, that the contract cannot be treated as forming two independent parts. If it were so, the plaintiff would be entitled to some relief on basis of the contract with the defendants 2 and 3 even if he failed to prove the contract with defendant No. 1. However, the suit will fail wholly if the contract with defendant No. 1 is not proved irrespective of any contract with the other defendants. On the other hand, the contract with defendants 2 and 3 comes in for consideration only if that with the defendant 1 is proved. It is in enforcing specific performance only that the existence or non-existence of the contract with other defendants has to be taken into account to see whether the defendant No. 1 would be in a position to perform the contract specifically.

( 7 ) SHRI Bhalerao relies u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document