1. The substantial question of law which calls for decisionin this rule is, whether the suit as framed was cognisable in the Court of theMunsif or in that of the Subordinate Judge. The Plaintiff alleges that he isthe owner of the property in dispute and that he is entitled to collect rentfrom the cultivating raiyats at specified rates. His grievance is that inproceedings under Chap. X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, some of the Defendantshave got themselves registered as the persons entitled to collect rent from thecultivating raiyats. He therefore prays for declaration of his title and for aninjunction to restrain the Defendants from collecting rent from the cultivatingraiyats. He describes his suit as one for declaration of title with consequentialrelief and values the reliefs claimed at Rs. 500. The Defendants object thatthe value of the property in dispute is at least Rs. 5,000 and that the suit isnot maintainable in the Court of the Munsif. Upon these pleadings, the Munsiftook evidence upon the question of the value of the property and came to theconclusion that it was worth from Rs. 4,000 to Rs. 5,000. In this view, he heldthat he had no jurisdiction to try the suit and returned the plaint forpresentation to the proper Court. The Plaintiff then appealed to theSubordinate Judge and contended that under sec. 7, sub-sec. (4), cls. (a) and(d) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, he was entitled to value the relief sought atany figure he chose, and that Court-fees had to be paid upon such amount whichalso determined the jurisdiction of the Court under sec. 8 of the SuitsValuation Act 1887. The learned Subordinate Judge gave effect to thiscontention and held upon the authority of the decision of this Court in thecase of Hari Sankar Dutt v. Kali Kumar Patra I. L. R. 32 Cal 734 (1905) thatthe Court as well as the Defendants were bound to accept the valuationarbitrarily fixed by the Plaintiff, in other words, that whatever the realvalue of the subject-matter in controversy might be, the Court had nojurisdiction to adjudicate upon the question of the just and proper valuationof the suit. We are now invited by the Defendants to hold that this order iserroneous. In our opinion, there is no room for serious controversy that theorder cannot be supported. In the first place, as was pointed out by this Courtin the case of Umatul Batul v. Naufi Kuor 6 C. L. J. 427 (1907) upon a trueconstruction of sec. 7 of the Court Fees Act and a consideration of the historyof the legislation on the subject, the proposition cannot possibly bemaintained that the Plaintiff is entitled to fix arbitrarily the value of therelief claimed by him. The learned Vakil for the Plaintiff is not prepared toquestion the reasonableness of this view, but he places reliance upon thedecision of this Court in the case of Hart Sankar Dutt v. Kali Kumat Patra I.L. R. 32 Cal. 731 (1905) and presses for a reference of the question to a FullBench for decision. It is not necessary, in our opinion, to adopt the coursesuggested, because the facts of the litigation in Hari Sankar Dutt v. KaliKumar Paha I. L. R. 32 Cal. 731 (1905) were very peculiar, and till anothercase arises of precisely the same description, the consideration of thequestion, whether the view adopted in that case can be supported on principle,may be deferred. But it is worthy of note that the case mentioned seems tostand by itself and cannot be reconciled with the earlier decision of thisCourt in Boidya Nath Adya v. Makhan Lal Adya I. L. R. 17 Cal. 680 (1890). Itcannot be disputed for a moment that if the view suggested on behalf of thePlaintiffs is accepted, questions and controversy relating to property ofconsiderable value may be tried in a Court in which the Legislature neverintended that matters of that description should be litigated. To adapt to thiscase the language used by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in RunBahadur v. Lucho Koer I. L. R. 11 Cal. 301 (1884), if the construction of sec.7 of Court Fees Act suggested by the Plaintiff were adopted, the lowest Courtin India might determine finally I he title to any property in the empire. Thematter, it may be observed, is not one of form but of sub, stance. If the suitis tried in a Court of competent jurisdiction (in this case the Court of theSubordinate Judge) a first appeal might lie to this Court and possibly anappeal to His Majesty in Council. On the other hand, if the suit is tried inthe Court of the Munsif, an appeal would lie to the District Judge, and only asecond appeal to this Court in which questions of fact could not beinvestigated. We, therefore, adhere to the view taken in the case of Umatul v.Nauji 6 C. L. J. 427 (1907) as well-founded on first principles, and justifiedby the plain construction of the Act as also the history of the legislation onthe subject.

2. We may add that in the case before us, the Plaintiffalthough he nominally seeks for declaration of title and for an injunction,essentially asks for recovery of possession. At any rate, if the Plaintiffsucceeds, the obvious result will follow that the Defendant will no longer bein a position, as against the Plaintiff, to collect rent from the cultivatingraiyats. In substance, therefore, the Plaintiff will obtain possession of theproperty as landlord of the cultivating raiyats, whereas under the decision ofthe Settlement Officer, such right belongs to the Defendants. In a case of thisdescription, the value of the relief sought is manifestly the value of theproperty in dispute. We are supported in this conclusion by the judgment ofMuthusami Ayyar and Wilkinson, JJ., in Ganapati v. Chathu I. L. R. 12 Mad. 223(1689), which was accepted by Ayyar and Park, JJ., in Ibrayan v. Komamutti I.L. R. 15 Mad. 501 (1891). We, therefore, entertain no doubt whatever that theorder of the Subordinate Judge is erroneous and that its effect is to conferjurisdiction upon a Court which is not competent to try this suit. The resultis that this rule is made absolute, the order of the Subordinate Judgedischarged and that of the original Court restored. The Petitioners will havetheir costs both here and before the Subordinate Judge. We assess the hearingfee in this Court at three gold mohurs.

.

Krishna Das Lala and Ors. vs. Hari Churn Banerjee(07.04.1911 - CALHC)