A suit for possession of church property, including the land appurtenant thereto, is properly valued under Article 17 (vi) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act, as such property has no market value.

( 1 ) THE appellant-defendant, by the present appeal, has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 19-11-1993, passed in Civil Appeal No. 140-A of 1986, by the 1st Additional Judge to the Court of the District Judge, Hoshangabad, whereunder the order dated 30-9-1986 and the order, dated 10-10-1986, passed in Civil Suit No. 231-A of 1986, were set aside and the case was remanded back to the trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts leading to the appeal, are, the respondent-plaintiff filed Civil Suit No. 231-A/1986 against the present appellant-defendant in the trial Court for possession of, a church building parsonage building, for recovery of arrears of rent and damages and also prayed for an injunction against the appellant. It was stated in the suit that the plaintiff is a registered society registered under the U. P. Societies Registration Act, having its registration No. 449/58/59. It was also contended that the principal aim and object of the society is to propogate the Christian religion and its allied charitable works. According to the plaintiff, the work of the society is carried on by the Board of Governers. The plaintiff purchased a piece of land admeasuring 60' x 80' on 9-12-1970 at village Rasulia, tahsil and district Hoshangabad, from one Seth Gulabchand for a sum of Rs. 4,800/-, under a registered sale deed and obtained possession of the property. The plaintiff constructed the buildings on this piece of land, consisting a Church building, measuring about 25' x 35' and a parsonage building, measuring about 25' x 20'. Both the buildings are pucca construction. According to the plaintiff, the defendant-appellant was employed as a pastor by the plaintiff and according to the service conditions, besides his pay, he was allowed to occupy the parsonage building in lieu of house rent allowance of Rs. 125/- per month, which was payable to him in case he was required to live in a rented accommodation. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was obliged to vacate the premises, either on his transfer or on termination of his services. The defendant accordingly occupied the parsonage building as a tenant of the plaintiff. The tenancy was monthly which commenced on the first day of each month. According to the plaintiff the defendant became rebel and was disobeying the orders issued by the plaintiff from time to time. The defendant was found guilty of indiscipline disobedience of the instructions issued by the plaintiff and refused to hand over the accounts. The defendant was served with a notice on 29-8-1981 by the Chairman of the plaintiff-society whereby he was dismissed from his services with retrospective effect from 1-8-1978 and was asked to hand over the charge of the office of church, so also the parsonage building. As the defendant disobeyed the orders and was continuing to occupy the Church and parsonage building illegally, the suit was filed for recovery of possession of the church building, the parsonage building, for recovery of arrears of rent and damages and an injunction was also sought restraining the defendant that he should not conduct the church services and permit his successor pastor to conduct church services. The plaintiff valued the suit for Rs. 300/- for possession of church property and paid Court-fee of Rs. 30/- accordingly. For purposes of possession of the parsonage building, the suit was valued for Rs. 1,500/-, being 12 months' rent at Rs. 125/-per month and Court-fee of Rs. 160/- was paid for recovery of damages, the suit was valued at Rs. 4,800/- on which Court-fee of Rs. 556/- was paid. Lastly, for claim of injunction, the suit was valued at Rs. 300/- and Court-fee of Rs. 30/- was paid thereon. The plaintiff thus paid a total of Rs. 776/- as Court-fee. ( 3 ) THE said suit was registered as No. 231-A of 1986. Notices were issued to the defendant. On 1-5-1986, the defendant filed an application under O. 7, R. 11, C. P. C. raising an objection that the