Find a Lawyer

Civil Reference No. 299 of 1962, decided on 11th January 1963.

, Ss. 18 &c 2 (h)‑Word "value" in S. 18 (1)‑Means market value of subject‑matter of suit and not value determinable under Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S. 4.

Dost Muhammad Kamil for Petitioner.

Peer Bakhsh Khan for Respondents Nos. 1‑3.

Abdul Sattar, Attorney for Respondent No. 4.

Rahimdil, Attorney for Respondents Nos. 5‑8.

Rest of the Respondents served by substituted service.

None of them in attendance.

Date of hearing : 7th January 1963.

Abdul Mast and others instituted a suit for declaration with respect to a 4 kanals 13 marlas and 3 sarsais of land, and for joint possession of 604 kanals 17 morlas, specified in the plaint, The learned Senior Sub‑Judge, Mardan, by his judgment, dated the 17th of December 1958, found that the plaintiffs were entitled to 16/72 share in the property of Mst. Mehrman Jan, and granted them a decree for joint possession of the property in the following manner :‑

(1) 238‑2/3 kanals of land out of the disputed property situated in the area of Mahal Ferozpur.

(2) 27 kanals 15 marlas 16 sarsais in the land situated in the area of Mahal Kodinaka.

(3) 17 kanals 4 marlas out of the land situated in Mahal Mardan, and

(4) 6 kanals 6‑2/3 marlas situated in Chak Mardan.

Against this judgment and decree, three separate appeals were instituted in the High Court. One appeal was registered as No. 63/18, the second as 60/17 and the third as 66/19 of 1959. The appeals were still pending in the High Court when the West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance of 1962 was enforced, and they were sent to the Court of the District Judge, Peshawar, by virtue of the provisions of section 18(1) (b) of the Ordinance. These appeals were registered in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Mardan, at Nos. 39 to 41 of 1962.

2. The parties to these appeals admitted before the learned Additional District Judge, Mardan, that the value of the subject- matter of the appeals was more than Rs. 25,000, and therefore these appeals were to be heard by the High Court under section 18 of the Ordinance. The parties to the three appeals, therefore, agreed on the fact that the market value of the suit property is more than Rs. 25,000 though the suit was valued less than Rs. 25,000 by virtue of the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act. The learned Additional District Judge has referred this point for decision to this Court (presumably under Order XLVI, rule 1, C. P. C.) to the effect if the value for the purposes of section 18 of the Ordinance would be the market value of the property in suit, or it would be the value determinable under the Suits Valuation Act.

3. The word "value" occurring in section 18 of the Ordinance has been defined in section 2(h) of the same Ordinance, in the following words :‑

"Value used with reference to a suit means the amount or value of the subject‑matter of the suit."

4. The provisions of section 18 of the Ordinance for the determination of the value contained in section 2(h) of the same Ordinance are analogous to section 2, clause (5) of the N.‑W. F. P. Courts Regulation, 1931. In interpreting section 2, clause (5) of the N.‑W. F. P. Courts Regulation, 1931, the Judicial Commis sioner's Court held in S. Tulsi Das Singh and others v. Yusaf Shah and others (A I R 1936 Pesh. 61), that "where, although the value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is only Rs.517, still the question directly involved in the case is the validity of a mortgage for Rs. 6,000, the requirements of section 31(1) (b) (ii) are fulfilled, and a further appeal lies from the decree of the District Judge." Similarly in Poosa Thorai v. Kannappa Chetty and others (A I R 1918 Mad. 1099), interpreting the words "value of the subject‑matter" used in section 110, C. P. Code, it was held that under this section, the value of the subject‑matter of the suit' is the real market value of the property involved. The fact that for the purpose of stamp duty the plaintiff in exercise of the option given to him by the Court‑fees Act, section 7, valued it at less than its market value cannot deprive him of his right to appeal to the Privy Council." In this judgment, it was further remarked that "in a suit for the cancellation of a deed of sale, the plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 5,250 and paid court‑fee thereon; but as a matter of fact the market value of the property was above Rs. 10,000." It was also held that "for the purpose of section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code, the value of the suit was more than Rs. 10,000."

5. The word "value" used with reference to a suit means the amount or value of the subject‑matter of the suit used in section 18 of the Ordinance, and therefore, means the market value of the property in suit, and not the valuation placed under the Suits Valuation Act. The reference is answered accordingly. The learned Additional District Judge, therefore, is directed to transfer the appeals to this Court for disposal, according to law.

K. B. A. Answer in affirmative.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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