( 344 )
De SampayoJ.
Lebbe v.Banda
by a lessee in ejectment on the strength of his lessor’s title. On theother hand, Wickremesinghe v. Jayasinghc1 which has been cited insupport of the objection to -the jurisdiction, is not a direct authorityon the point. I have looked into the original record, and find thatit is not a case by a lessee or by a person whose interest is anythingless than ownership. The Appellate Court had to consider anopinion expressed by the District Judge that the value of the rightclaimed was the value of one year’s possession before ouster, and itwas held that the right claimed was “ perpetual possession ” of theland, and that the action should be valued according to the valueof the land. Reference has also been made to my judgment inLeidohamy v. GoonetillekeJ3 where I remark that a possessory suitshould be valued according to the value of the subject-matter ofthe suit, that is to say, of the property of whicji possession is claimed.I venture to think that that is a correct view. In such a suit neitherthe title to the land nor the extent of the plaintiff’s interest thereinis involved. The suit is based solely on the fact of possession andwhether it be brought by the owner himself or by a lessee, thesubject-matter is the land. Consequently, in the case of a lessee,the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be determined merely by thevalue of the unexpired term of the lease.
The order of the Commissioner with regard to the jurisdiction ofthe Court of Requests, so far as the specific ground on which it hasbeen based is concerned, is, I think, erroneous. But, as I said, thequestion of fact as to the value of the land has still to be determineddefinitely, and the case should go back for that purpose. If uponthe material already in the record, or on such further evidence asthe parties may wish to call, the Commissioner finds that the landis no more than Rs. 300 in value the judgment appealed from willstand, but otherwise the plaintiff’s action will be dismissed and theplaintiff referred to an action in the District Court.
The case is remitted to the Court of Requests to be dealt with asabove indicated. Tbe costs of appeal and of the action will be inthe discretion of the Commissioner.
Sent back.
(2914) 18 N. L. R. 84.
* (1913) 5 Bat. N. C. 14.