Rup Chand vs Fateh Chand and Another

Tudball, J.—This is a reference by the Taxing Officer. The plaintiff in the suit brought a claim for possession of certain property as transferee from a Musammat Gomi. Musammat Gomi is a person to whom property had been bequeathed by Musammat Gomti Kuar, a Hindu widow, who had acquired it tinder a will executed by her husband. The plaintiff was resisted by a person who was also a beneficiary under the will of Gomti Kuar. The lower court held that the plaintiff was entitled to possession, but that that possession should be restricted to the life-time of Musammat Gomi. The defendant has appealed, he has paid full court fee, as he objects to the decree for possession. The plaintiff has also appealed, and he seeks thereby to set aside so much of the lower court''s decree as declared him to be entitled to possession for the life-time of Musammat Gomi, and he asks the court on appeal to declare that he is entitled to the absolute ownership of the property and not to a limited interest. He has paid a court fee of Rs. 10. The Taxing Officer is of opinion that the appeal should bear an ad valorem stamp, as in a suit for possession of land u/s 7, clause V (b) of the Court Fees Act. I find it difficult to see that the appeal falls under this section and clause. As matters stand now, the plaintiff appellant seems to me to be in the position of a person in possession of property who seeks to clear his title and to obtain a declaration that he has the full right of ownership to the property. Under the circumstances I think the Rs. 10 paid as for a declaration is sufficient.