Krishna Chandra Gauntia v. Raja Mahakur

Ross, J.:— No one appears in this case. The cases referred to on the question, whether the case falls within section 7(xi)(e) of the Court-Fees Act or not, are not of much assistance. The decision in Sunder Mal Marwari v. Murray really proceeded on another ground, namely, that the suit was not one between landlord, and tenant only, but also between the tenant an 1 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 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 Bala Sidhanta v. Permul Chetti and Pramatha v. Amiraddi indicate that in a suit under section 7(xi)(e), of the Court-Fees Act, the Court will not try a question of title. The present suit is one for possession of hind after determination of the question of title and the title was gone into. The case in my opinion falls within section 7(v) of the Act and the Court-Fee is payable on the market value of the land i.e Rs. 300.