Upon this petition, the trial companyrt ordered thus In view of the pleadings of the parties.
The first respondent filed a written statement in which he claimed that in April 1960 he was in need of money and had approached the late Jaikishun Lal for a loan.
The first appellant was a minor when Jaikishun Lal died.
The first respondent denied that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and himself.
The proposal was accepted and the first respondent was inducted as a tenant on 1 5 1960.
After the late Jaikishun Lal became the owner of the property, the first respondent had requested him to let the suit property to him on a monthly rental of Rs 90.
The first respondent paid some rent to the late Jaikishun Lal and thereafter to the plaintiffs, the last of such payments having been made on 7 8 1962.
the plaintiffs are directed to pay ad valorem companyrt fee on the market value of the suit property.
Although initially the suits were filed as between the landlord and tenant and companyrt fee paid accordingly, but as a result of the defence, the parties led evidence on the question of title to the property, and the companyrts have dealt with the question at 1 1985 PLJR 358 companysiderable length.
The appellants were the owners of the suit property, the first respondent was their tenant and he was in arrears of rent.
The late Jaikishun Lal had insisted that the security for the loan should be in the form of a sale deed with a clause for re companyveyance as also a Kirayanama showing a monthly rent for the suit property of Rs 90.
The first respondent being in urgent need of money had executed these documents under undue influence and companypulsion.
On 18 5 1960, the first respondent had executed a Kirayanama in favour of the late Jaikishun Lal in the aforementioned terms.
The appellants carried the matter to the Patna High Court by way of a civil revision application.
Upon attaining majority the first appellant had filed a petition for mutation of the Municipal Register in respect of the suit property.
The same was dismissed in limine.
From the order thereon the appellants have preferred this appeal by special leave.
The first respondent moved a petition in the trial companyrt averring that the companyrt in view of the pleadings of the parties has to decide in respect of the title number incidentally but in a full fledged manner and, therefore, the appellants companyld number proceed with the suit unless ad valorem companyrt fees on the market value of the suit property were paid.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. BHARUCHA, J. The appellants were the plaintiffs in a suit filed against the first respondent in the Court of the Munsif 1st, Gaya being TS No.
The plaintiff alleges personal necessity also.
For the purposes of Jurisdiction and companyrt fees, the suit was valued at Rs 1080 being the monthly rent of the house in suit for 12 months and the appellants, on payment of companyrt fees of Rs 157.50, prayed for the following reliefs That a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the house in suit be passed.
The appellants needed the suit property for personal use.
Being a defaulter he was liable to be evicted from the suit property.
That the defendant be ordered to vacate the house in suit within the period fixed by the companyrt failing which the plaintiffs be put in possession over the house in suit through the processes of the companyrt.
It was alleged in the plaint that the appellants were the sons and daughters of one Jaikishun Lal who died on 1 7 1962, leaving them behind as his sole heirs.
Reliance was placed upon the judgment reported in Sheo Shankar Prasad v. Barhan Mistry1.
The late Jaikishun Lal had purchased the suit property from the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 30 4 1960.
Paragraph 2 of the judgment, of a learned Single Judge, reads The plaintiff alleges that rent was paid up to December 1978 only and the defendants have defaulted thereafter.
The first respondent had filed objections thereto, which had been rejected.
The defendants have seriously denied the title of the plaintiff to the katras in question.
If the plaintiffs are so advised, they may file petition for amendment of the plaint in the light of declaration of their title to the suit property.
278 of 1971 .
