Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL GHAFOOR VS Respondent: RAHMATULLA
P L D 1950 BaghdadulJadid 62
P L D 1950 Baghdad‑ul‑Jadid 62
DIVISION BENCH
Before Abdul Aziz, C. J. and Mahmood Khan, J.
ABDUL GHAFOOR‑Appellant
Versus
RAHMATULLA and others‑Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous of 1950, decided on 2nd May 1950.
(a) Court‑fees Act (VII of 1870)-----Schedule I, Article 1- Pre‑emption suit‑Appeal to reduce pre‑emption money‑Court fee to be paid on amount sought to be reduced.
It is settled law that in an appeal in a pre‑emption case, in which the appellant asks the Court to reduce by a certain sum the amount payable by him under the orders of the first Court that sum represents the value of the subject‑matter of the appeal, and it is upon that sum, that he must pay the ad valorem fee specified in Art. 1 of the first schedule to the Court‑fees Act.
(b) Court‑fees Act (VII of 1870) S. 7, clause 6‑Pre‑emp tipn suit Appeal by vendee challenging that plaintiff is not entitled to stilt land‑Court‑fee is to be computed in accordance with S 7, clause 6.
191 C 961; A I R 1918 All. 232; 6 All. 488 ; A I R 1916 Lah. 208 referred to.
Where the appeal is by the vendee who objects that the plaintiff is not entitled to the land in suit, the Court‑fee to be affixed to the memorandum of appeal must be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 7, clause 6 of the Court‑fees Act.
ORDER.‑----In a pre‑emption suit by the plaintiff a decree was passed in his favour on payment of Rs. 30,000. He has preferred an appeal to this Court and the memorandum of appeal is stamped with a Court‑fee on the sum which he desires to be reduced. The report of the office is that the. Court‑fee is not properly paid. As this question is frequently to arise in this Court we have considered it advisable to give s decision thereon which may in future be a guidance for the office. It is the settled law that in which the appellant asks the Court to reduce by a certain sum the amount payable by him under the orders of the first Court that sum represents the value of the subject‑matter of the appeal, and it is upon that sum, that he must pay the ad valorem to fee specified in Art. 1 of the first schedule to the Court‑fee Act.
Where, however, the appeal is by the vendee who objects that the plaintiff is not entitled to tire land in suit, the Court‑fee to be affixed to the memorandum of appeal must be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 7, clause 6 of the Court‑fees Act. See 19 I C 961 Waryam Singh v. Mehtab Singh and others a Full Bench of the Punjab Chief Court.
The same view was adopted by. Tudball, J. in A.I.R 1918 All. 2321 In that ruling Hafiz Ahmad v. Sobha Ram 6 All. 488 ,Full Bench was followed.
In 1916 Lahore 208 the Division Bench followed the view expressed in Waryam Singh v. Mehtab Singh quoted above.
We, therefore, hold that the Court‑fee paid by the appellant is correct. The appeal is admitted and the notice is issued to the respondent.
K. M. A. Appeal admitted.