' MAULVI ANWAR UL HAQ, J.---The learned trial Court rejected the plaint of the petitioners in a suit' filed by them for a declaration that they are the owners of the suit-land, mentioned in the plaint and that mutation for correction of ownership No,13499 dated 5-11-2007 is illegal and void and several sale deeds executed by respondent No,11 in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 10 are also void.
He also sought permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his possession on the basis of said mutation and sale-deeds and alienating the same. In the alternative prayer for possession of the suit-land was made. Feeling aggrieved of the said order dated 21-6-2008 the petitioners filed a first appeal. The appeal was admitted to hearing and notices were issued. On 9-9-2008 the appeal was ordered to be returned to the petitioners for filing in this Court. The present civil revision has been filed against the said order dated 9-9-2008 of learned District Judge, Attock.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken me through the plaint to state that so far as the documents are concerned, the matter is covered by section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the suit valued at Rs,1,000 for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. According to him, the finding of the learned District Judge regarding the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction is not supported by any provision of law. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned order.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records, appended with this civil revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. According to the plaint, the suit-land was owned by one Haji Umar Bakhsh. The respondent No,11 filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 19-12-1989 against Haji Umar Bakhsh. The suit was decided on 20-1-1991 with the directions that the balance amount of Rs,1,15,000 shall be deposited in Court till 20-2-1991.
The respondent No,1 (Mahmood Khan) did not deposit the said amount as directed and the suit stood dismissed in terms of the said judgment. It was further stated that the receipt dated 20-2- 1991 allegedly executed by Umar Bakhsh is forged and fabricated and the endorsements purported to be made by the learned Civil Judge are also fabricated and in any case the amount was to be deposited in Court till 20-2-1991. The decree was never put into execution. The petitioners claimed themselves to be vendees with reference to several sale deeds referred to in para-5 of the plaint.
Whereas the sale deeds in favour of petitioners Nos.2 and 3 were incorporated in the revenue records and mutations were attested. The sale-deed in favour of petitioner No,1 was not so incorporated. The remaining allegations in the plaint are not relevant for purposes of this order. In para-13 of the plaint the value for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was fixed at Rs,1,000 with the averment that in case some court-fee is payable it would be paid by the petitioners. Some preliminary arguments were heard by the learned trial Court on 21-6-2008 in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent No,11. It was found that the suit is barred by law and the plaint was rejected. I have examined the said order. No objection was taken to the valuation of the suit. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the appeal an application was filed on 9-9-2008 stating that the petitioners have challenged 10 registered sale deeds. The consideration amounts were mentioned and it was stated that the total comes to Rs,28,85,000 and as such the learned District Judge has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
4. Vide the impugned order the learned District Judge has agreed with the contents of the said application and returned the appeal.
5. Having examined the said plaint and the impugned order wherein the learned District Judge has observed that the value for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction is the total value of the consideration mentioned in the said sale deeds is wholly without jurisdiction. As noted by me above, the petitioners have questioned a mutation that according to them has been illegally attested with reference to the said decree in favour of respondent No,11 whereas he had A not complied with the terms of the decree for specific performance. The sale deeds have been sought to be declared to be void as these emanated from the said mutation having been executed by the respondent No,11 in favour of respondents Nos.1 to 10. This part of the relief is fully covered by section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and the petitioners are entitled to put their own valuation.
6. However, the matter does not end here. The petitioners have claimed a declaration of title in immovable property on the basis of sale deeds referred to in para-5 of the plaint. The declaration of title sought being on the basis of sale the suit has to be valued in accordance with section 7 (iv)A of the said Act, according to the value of the said property purchased by them through the said sale deeds. They have also claimed possession of the land so purchased by them. This part of the relief has to be valued in accordance with section 7(v) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, as amended vide Punjab. Act No, XIV of 1973.
7. The learned District Judge has completely failed to read the plaint and appears to be oblivious of the said provisions of law while passing the impugned order. The civil revision accordingly is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-9-2008 of learned District Judge, Attock, is set aside. The result would be that the first appeal shall be deemed to be pending before the learned District Judge, Attock. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Attock, on 26-5-2009. The learned District Judge shall undertake the exercise of fixing the value of the suit in the light of the observations made above in accordance with law and proceed further accordingly. Needless to state that value for purposes of jurisdiction will be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887. No orders as to costs.
8. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned District Judge, Attock.