In Re: Mazumdar Sobhanadri Rao Pantulu Garu and Others

Jackson, J.—This is a question of Court-fees. The plaintiff, an inamdar, claims to have full right to both kudivaram and mehvaram in the land

which comprises the inam (paragraph 3), so the letting to tenants is for temporary periods (paragraph 4), and the inam is not an estate within the

definition in Act I of 1908 (paragraph 5) ; all tenants are tenants at will (paragraph 6). In December, 1926, the defendants who are temporary

tenants were given notice to quit (paragraph 7) and the plaintiff prays for a decree establishing his right in the suit lands and removing the

defendants.

This plaint plainly sets forth a familiar form of suit. The inamdar claims both varams, and therefore though he has no proof of actually letting the

defendants into possession, he claims the right to eject them after due notice, by virtue of his title to the kudivaram. The tenants do not dispute his

claim to the melwaram, but assert occupancy right.

The Court-fee has been paid u/s 7, Clause (xi)(cc) of the Court Fees Act. The Lower Court has ordered that the fee shall be computed u/s 7(v)

and the plaintiff appeals.

Clause (xi) is applicable when the suit is based on a lease, but not when the plaintiff also wants a decree establishing his ''title, Balasidhantam and

Others Vs. Perumal Chetti, and Others, . So far the order of the Lower Court is unexceptionable. But the learned Subordinate Judge finds that the

suits are for the declaration of plaintiff''s title to the plaint schedule lands which is not quite correct. The defendants, though they do not put

plaintiff''s title as high as he would like, at least admit that he is the landholder of the land in question, and so far his title to the land is not in dispute.

The only quarrel between them is whether he is entitled to the kudivaram, and that is not on the same footing as a dispute between alleged owner

and trespasser. Clause (v)(c) would apply to a case where the plaintiff is suing to be put into possession of an mam, and it can hardly have been

contemplated that a plaintiff should pay the same court-fee when he sues for possession of an inam against a rival claimant, and when as undisputed

inamdar he asserts his title to the kudivaram.

The appropriate section would therefore seem to be Section 7(iv)(c) to obtain a declaratory decree (that he is entitled to the kudivaram) and

consequential relief of possession.

The record will be returned to the Lower Court to value the suits accordingly.