The dispute involved in this civil revision relates to certain land, owned by one Ghulam Muhammad.
During the lifetime of Ghulam Muhammad, a mutation of gift in respect of the said land, was attested in favour of the petitioners, Lal Din and another, who are his sons. After the death of Ghulam Muhammad, that mutation was challenged by the respondent, Mst. Rasul Bibi, who is daughter of Ghulam Muhammad, inter alia on the ground of fraud. This she had done by filing a suit for declaration with consequential relief. In that suit, she claimed possession of 1/5th share in the aforesaid land for being an heir of Ghulam Muhammad. The plea of fraud raised by the respondent had found favour with a Civil Judge of Gujranwala, who had heard the suit. The suit was, therefore, decreed. The judgment and decree of the learned trial Court were challenged by the petitioners by means of an appeal which was also dismissed by the District Judge, Gujranwala.
Hence this civil revision.
2. While deciding issue No. IV, it was held by the two Courts below that the mutation in dispute was vitiated by fraud. That issue reads as follows :- "Whether the deceased Ghulam gifted away suit property to the defen--dants vide mutation No. 317 dated 6-7-1972. If so, with what effect 7 O. P. D." .
It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the burden of proving issue No. IV had been wrongly placed on the petitioners (defen--dants) and, therefore, their case had been prejudiced.
3. It is evident from the impugned judgment that the respondent (plaintiff) had first led her evidence on the above issue and thereafter the petitioners (defendants) had produced evidence in rebuttal. The evidence of the respondent had substantiated the plea of fraud which was raised by her in the plaint. While producing their evidence, the petitioners had tried to demonstrate that the mutation in dispute was attested at the instance of the donor, namely, Ghulam Muhammad. All this clearly shows that the parties were conscious of the real controversy between them and had made full efforts to establish their respective view points. Thus, in my opinion, no prejudice was caused to them due to the placement of burden of proof of issue No. IV on the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also took exception to the ,finding of the learned District Judge on the question of Court fee. As stated above the suit brought by the respondent was for declaration with conse--quential relief. Its value for the purpose of Count fee was fixed by the plaintiff-respondent at Rs. 200. It was objected to by the defendants-peti--tioners whereupon the following issue was framed :- "Whether the suit has been correctly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? Whether plaint has been sufficiently stamped? If not, with what effect? O. P. P.
Learned Civil Judge did not record any finding on the above issue saying that no evidence has been produced thereon. The learned District Judge, however, discussed the issue and found that the suit had been correctly valued. Relying on clause (iv-A) of section 7 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, hereinafter referred to as the said Act, it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiff-respondent ought to have paid Court fee according to the value of property in dispute.
5. Clause (iv-A) of section 7 of the said Act is by way of an exception to the provisions of sub- clause (c) of clause (iv) of section 7 thereof. Accord--ing to sub-clause (c) ibid the plaintiff has to state the amount at which he values his suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief.
Clause (iv-A) has recently been added to section 7 of the said Act to provide that in a suit for declaratory decree with or without consequential relief as to right in or title to immovable property based on alleged sale, gift, exchange or mort--gage, the value of the suit shall be fixed according to the value of the property. This provision was made with a view to discouraging declaratory suits which were aimed at acquiring title to immovable property by avoiding expen21A which are required to be incurred in connection with the execution a registration of title deeds. Clause (iv-A) would have been applicable to present case if the respondent had claimed declaration as to her title on the basis of any alleged sale, gift, exchange or mortgage, but since her claim did not rest on any such transaction, the said clause was not attracted to her case. She had claimed a share in the disputed land on the basis of her right of inheritance inasmuch as she is, admittedly, the daughter of the aforemen--tioned Ghulam Muhammad: The suit brought by her, therefore, fell within the purview of sub-clause (c) of clause (iv) of section 7 of the said Act. In this view of the matter, no valid exception can be taken to the valuation of the suit fixed by her at Rs. 200.
6. Resultantly, this civil revision fails. It is dismissed in limine.