Find a Lawyer

Second Appeal from Order No. 20 of 1956, decided on 17th June 1957 from the order of Khan Zia Ullah Khan, Senior Civil Judge, Lahore dated the 22nd February 1956, reversing that of Chaudhri Ghulam Hussain, Civil judge, II Class, Qasur, dated the 30th October 1954.

S.7‑(v) (b) (e)‑Land, appurtenant to a house; not built upon ; and assessed to land revenue‑Court‑fees for suit for possession of such land to be paid according to land revenue under S. 7 (v) (b) and not according to market value under S. 7 (v) (e).

Held, that the court‑fees, on a suit for possession of a parcel of land, which is appurtenant to a house, but which is not built upon, the land forming a whole Khasra number and being assessed to land revenue. is to be computed according to the land revenue under section 7 (v) (b) and not according to its market value under section 7 (v) (e), Court Fees Act (VII of 1870).

According to section 7 (v) (b), it is only the subject matter of the suit that is to be considered property.

The question was, should the High Court, while determin ing the question of court‑fee, look only to that for which suit is brought and consider whether the property by itself constitutes a house or should one look upon it only as a part of a larger unit of property

Both the above interpretations being possible the High Court preferred the former which placed a lesser burden upon the litigant.

Kh. Abdur Rahim and Sh. Abdur Rashid for Appellant.

Ch. Feroze Din for Respondents.

Dates of hearing : 21st and 27th May;1957.

This is an appeal against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, remanding a case in appeal on the ground that Court‑fee paid on the plaint was insufficient, and that is the only question for decision before me.

According to the plaint, a house with its appurtenant land and buildings, measuring in all 29 kanals and 4 marlas, had been sold by the father of the defendants to the plaintiff in the year 1941 by a registered sale‑deed. Some time before the suit; the defendants are alleged to have encroached upon 2 kanals and 6 marlas out of the land which was included in the sale‑deed. The land which has been encroached upon is entered in the jamabandi, bears a khasra number (2255), and is not built upon. The contention of the appellant is that the suit is for possession of land, falling under section 7 (v) (b) of the Court‑fees Act, and, as the land is assessed to land revenue, Court‑fee is payable in accordance with the land revenue. The contention of the respondents, on the other hand, which has found favour with the learned Senior Civil judge is that the subject‑matter of the suit is a house within the meaning of section 7 (v) (e), and Court‑fee has to be paid according to its market value.

Section 7 (v) of the Court‑fees Act divides immovable property into land, houses and gardens. It provides that Court‑fee is, in suits for possession of lands, houses and gardens, to be paid according to the value of the subject- matter, but for determining the value of the subject‑matter it provides different methods. In the case of land, Court‑fee is to be paid, in the first instance, in accordance with the land revenue, but, if that be not possible, it is to be paid on the not profits or on market value. In the case of a house or garden, it has to be paid on market value. The point for decision is whether the subject‑matter of this suit is a 'house' or 'land'. If the property in dispute in this suit falls within the definition of "house". Court‑fee has td be paid according to section 7 (v) (e), otherwise, the Court‑fee paid on land revenue would be correct. This area, as already stated, is not built upon, but learned counsel for respondents contends it is 'house' on the ground that it was part of the plaintiff's house. So the precise question for decision which emerges is whether a suit for a part of a house, which part is not built upon by itself, is to be regarded as a suit of which the subject‑matter is, in the words of section 7 (v) (e), a "house". It cannot be denied, in view of the sale deed which I have myself perused, that the whole of the property sold to the plaintiff constituted a house.

The point is not covered by authority.. Applying my own mind, I find there is something to be said for each view. On the one hand, there is the consideration that the land, for which the suit is brought, does not by itself constitute a house and, according to section 7 (v) (e), it is only if the subject‑matter of the suit is a house that that subsection will apply. On the other hand, there is the consideration that: after all, what is being sued for is a part of a house, and ordinarily a part of something should not be different from that something. Also if I take into consideration only that for possession of which the suit is brought, liability to pay Court‑fee will depend upon the accident of the existence of some structure on the part which is encroached upon an j even upon the extent of that structure for a small structure may still not constitute the part sued for a house by itself.

Should we, while determining the question of Court‑fee, look only to that for which suit is brought and consider whether the property by itself constitutes a house or should we look upon it only as a part of a larger unit of property

I am inclined to adopt the first of the two interpretations. I feel that the argument that, according to section 7 (v) (b), it is only the subject‑matter of the suit that is to be considered has greater force. The least that can be said is that both interpretations are possible and if that be so, I would adopt the interpretation which places a lesser burden on the litigant. I would not hold in favour of a greater burden unless such was clearly the intention.

I hold that Court‑fee paid on the plaint is sufficient. I accept this appeal and remand the case to the learned Senior Civil Judge for disposal of the appeal according to law. Costs of this appeal shall be costs in the cause.

A. H. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.