AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ross, J.—No one appears in this case. The cases referred to on the question, whether the case falls within Section 7(xi)(e), Court-fees Act or not, are not of much assistance. The decision in Sunder Mal Marwari v. Murray (1912) 16 CLJ 375 really proceeded on another ground, namely that the suit was not one between landlord and tenant only, but also between the tenant and other persons who claimed to have acquired an interest from the landlord. The construction of two words "illegally ejected" suggested in that decision is obiter and does not appear to be a final decision. On the other hand in Jamla Singh v. Kingsley (1913) 17 CWN 1201 there is a decision that illegal ejectment is included in dispossession, but that was not a decision on the Court-fees Act.
The decisions in Balasidhantam and Others Vs. Perumal Chetti, and Others, and Pramatha v. Amiraddi AIR 1920 Cal 205 indicate that in a suit u/s 7(xi)(e), Court-fees Act, the Court will not try a question of title. The present suit is one for possession of land after determination of the question of title and the title was gone into. The case in my opinion falls within Section 7(5) of the Act and the Court-fee is payable on the market value of the land, i.e., Rs. 300.