JUDGMENT
Jagat Narain, J.
1. This is a revision application by the defendants against an appllate order of the District Judge, Ganganagar.
2. The defendants are the lessees of a plot of land at Ganganagar which was sub-let by them to the plaintiff for a period of 15 years. Possession over the plot was given back by the plaintiff to the defendant under a licence under which the defendants were appointed as dealers of the plaintiff for the sale of petroleum and other products. On the plot of land a petrol pump has been installed and a show-room has been constructed. It is not denied that the cost of these constructions comes to more than Rs. 20,000/-. The defendants have resigned from the dealership and the plaintiff has instituted the present suit for possession over the land. One of the questions raised before the appellate court on behalf of the defendants was that the price of the building standing on the land should be included in arriving at the valuation of the land for the purpose of court-fee under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. This contention was not accepted by the appellate court and hence this revision application has been filed.
3. On behalf of the defendant it is contended that under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 read with the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 the valuation of the building should be included, because the building attached to the earth is also immoveable property. This argument is not tenable. Under Section 29 fee is to be computed on the market value of the property possession over which is claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not claim possession over the building. It is open to the defendants to remove the building before delivering possession over the land, The decision is Sirdar Mahomed Tahar v. Pir Bux A.I.R. 1931 Sind 6 and the decision in Nihalchand v. Udey Ram 1886 Weekly Notes 106 are distinguishable. There the plaintiffs who had brought the suits asserted proprietory title to the land as well as the building standing on the land and it was in these circumstances that it was held that the value of the building is to be added to the value of the land to arrive at the valuation of the suit. In the present case the plaintiff only wants possession over the land and not over the building. In the following decisions this question was specifically raised and decided:-
Jogalkishore v. Tale singh I.L.R. 4 Allahabad 320 (F.B.).
Kulsumimn-I san v. Khushunudi Begum .
Abdul Ghani v. Vishunath .
Kewal Kishore v. Hamad Ahmed Khan .
Narasimha Rao v. A. Chenchamma A.I.R. 1962 Andhra Pradesh 408.
4. It was held in all the above cases that the value of the building was not to be included where the plaintiff does not claim possession over the building.
5. I accordingly find that there is no force in this revision and dismiss it with costs.