AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Reginald Roe, J.—I do not think any declaratory decree was necessary in this case. The suit is purely one for possession of immoveable property. The Mokarrari deed relied upon is merely the document of title on which the suit is bated.
With regard to the second part of the reference the decision in Ram Ekbal Singh and Others Vs. Baldeo Singh and Others, and the two cases quoted in that decision, Furzand Ali v. Mohanth Lal Suri 32 C. 268 and Ram Raj Tewari Y. Girnandan. Bhagat 15 A. 63 : A.W.N. (1892) 240 : 7 Ind. Doc. (N.S.) 757, are authority for the proposition that suits for occupancy rights and rights of Ryots holding at fixed rates do not come within the first clause of section 7, clause (v) of the Court Fees Act. Mahomed Reza and Others Vs. Hubibul Hossein and Others, is authority for the proposition that a Mokarrari lease of a definite share in a revenue-paying estate is land within the meaning of this clause with the latter decision I agree. The appeal may, therefore, be admitted as correctly stamped.