1. ' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI,J.---The point involved in the present Constitutional Petition is as to what should be the vlaue of suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction where in a suit for declaration and injunction the plaintiff claims title on the basis of sale and if the court-fee is to be paid ad velorem on value then whether it should be the current value at the time of filing of suit or the value as shown in the sale-deed.
2. ' The facts giving rise to the present petition are that the present petitioners had filed a suit before the Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur being suit No,13 of 1989 wherein they claimed that the respondent is the step-son and step-brother of the two petitioners and that the respondent was only four years old when his mother had married with petitioner No,l. The parties were occupying the house in suit since prior to the partition of Indo-Pakistan Sub-continent with the arrangement that the petitioners were in possession of second floor of the house while the respondent was in possession of the first and ground floor. The petitioner No,1 has further contended that the house in dispute was an evacuee property which was purchased by him against the claim of the present respondent.
3. However, subsequently present respondent filed an application for ejectment under Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the present petitioners which was dismissed on the ground that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The appeal being F.R.A.
4. No,108 of 1987 is said to be pending in this Court. The present petitioners then filed the suit being suit No,13 of 1989 in the Court of Second Senior Civil Judge wherein the reliefs prayed by them are as under:-- "(a) To declare that the defendant is benami holding the title of the disputed property No,D-1098/1- 3 situated on Hussaini Road, Sukkur on behalf of the plaintiffs.
(b) To. Declare that the plaintiff is the true owner of the property No,1098/1-3 situated on Hussaini Road, Sukkut.
(c) To declare that the plaintiffs even otherwise have.-acquired the title of Ownership of said property No,D-1098/1-3 situated-on Hussaini Road Sukkur through adverse possession.
(d) To restrain the defendant by way of permanent injunction from interfering the lawful possession of suit property No,D-1098/1-3 situated on Hussaini Road, Sukkur by the plaintiffs over the said property, and Sui-gas connection till the decision of this suit and first rent appeal pending in the Honourable High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur.
(1) To award the cost of this suit,
(g) To grant any other equitable relief."
5. ' An application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Was moved by the present respondent No,1 in the suit on two grounds i.e, plaint did not disclose any cause of action and the suit was undervalued and under-stamped as the plaintiff had shown the value of the suit for the prupose of court-fee for the reliefs of declaration and injunction at Rs.200 each and no court-fee was paid. The trial Court rejected the claim of the defendant that plaint did not disclose any cause of action but framed a preliminary issue for determination of the value of the house in dispute holding that the suit was to be valued in accordance with the provisions of section 7(iv) (a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870. Revision application against this order was filed by the present petitioner which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sukkur. The trial Court then proceeded with the matter and determined the value of the house in dispute at Rs.4,00,000 and the petitioners were called upon to pay court-fee on the said amount. The petitioners again filed a revision application before the District Judge, Sukkur which was dismissed. Being aggrieved the petitioners have submitted this Constitutional Petition.
6. ' We have heard Mr. G.M. Channa, the learned counsel for petitioners. He has submitted that in a suit for declaration and injunction the petitioners are at liberty to value the suit according to their discretion subject to only one condition that suit should not be valued in a manner so that the court-fee. Not less than Rs. 15, is attracted. He has further submitted that Court Fees Act being a fiscal law, its provisions are not to be stretched unduly but the same are to be interpreted in a manner beneficial to the subject. He has placed reliance on the cases of Municipal Committee Mandi Bahauddin v. Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division PLD 1990 Lah. 344 and Shaukat Ali and another v. Muhammad Hussain and another PLD 1985 Lah.
645. In the above two cases their Lordships have held that fiscal provisions are to be strictly construed and could not be unduly stretched and interpretation favourable to the subject is to be adopted. There is no cavil about above said proposition of law. He has further placed reliance on the case of Ilahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bilqees Begum PLD 1985 SC 393. In this ease of the Ho'nourable Supreme Court and also in the above cited case of Shaukat Ali and another v.
7. Muhammad Hussain and another the question involved pertained to a suit for pre-emption wherein the point of relief of possession was also dealt with. The suits for pre-emption and possession are dealt with in clauses (vi) and (v) respectively of section 7 of the Court Fees Act. The above cited cases, therefore, would not be applicable to the present case.
8. ' In order to appreciate the point involved it would be pertinent to consider the provisions of section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act which provides that in case of a suit filed for a declaratory decree and consequential relief the same is to be vlaued according to the amount at which the plaintiff values the relief sought. However, by an amendemcnt to the Court Fees Act through Sindh Finance Act of 1974 (Act XIII of 1974) a new clause (iv-a) was added to section 7 which reads as under:-- "(iv-a). Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (iv), in suits for a declaratory decree with or without consequential relief as to right in, or title to, immovable property based on alleged sale, gift, exchange or mortgage thereof according to the value of the property"
9. ' Similarly said clause (iv-a) was also enacted in Provinces of Punjab and Balochistan. In Sindh this clause (iv-a) was further amended by Sindh Finance Act, 1975 whereby the words "or without" were omitted. Thus the result of above amendments is that in case of a suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief wherein a right or title to immovable property is based on alleged sale, gift, exchange or mortgage thereof, the suit is to be valued according to the value of the property. A learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court dealing with the above point in the case of Lal Din and another v. Rasul Bibi PLD 1982 Lah. 615 has observed:-- "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. According to sub-clause (c) ibid the plaintiff has to state the amount at which he values his suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief.
10. 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 mortgage, 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 expenses which are required to be incurred in connection with the execution and registration of title deeds."
11. ' The learned Judge has also in the case of Bashir Ahmad v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 1985 Lah. 112 dealing with the above said provisions and referring to the above cited case has further observed:- - "6 Clause (iv-a), as worded at present, obliges a plaintiff to pay court-fee according to the vlaue of the immovable property if his claim is based on alleged sale, gift, exchange or mortgage. However, if the claim of the plaintiff is not so based and is founded on something else, such as right of inheritance, but his claim is refused by the defendant by placing reliance on alleged sale, gift, exchange or mortgage, the plaintiff will not be required to pay court-fee according to the value of the property and will be at liberty to state, under sub-clause (c) of clause (iv), the amount at which he values the relief sought."
12. From the above discussion and the fact that in the present case the claim of the plaintiff is based on a sale, the suit is to be valued on the basis of the value of the house in dispute. Of course the legal position is that prior to the above said amendments introduced through Sindh Act XIII of 1974 and Sindh Act XV of 1975 the plaintiff could value the suit at his discretion as was provided under section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act but after the said amendments the suit has to be valued in accordance with the value of the property in dispute and the court-fee is to be paid ad valorem thereon.
13. ' Now the second question which arises is whether this value on which the suit is to be valued and court-fee to be paid should be the current value of the property in dispute at the time of filing of the suit or it should be the value as mentioned in the document of alienation. In the present case the plaintiff has produced three extracts from Property Register pertaining to C.S. Nos.1098/1,2 and 3 each showing the value at Rs.10,080 as per PTD dated 5-6-1985. Total thus comes to Rs.30,240 whereas the enquiry held by the trial Court shows the current market value of the property at the time of filing of the suit at Rs.4,00,000.
14. ' The Sindh Finance Act, 1974 (Act XIII of 1974) whereby clause (iv-a) was added to Court Fees Act, 1870 also shows that a new clause (v) to section 7 of the Court Fees Act was substituted in place of existing clause (v). The newly substituted clause (v) reads as under:-- "(v) In suits for the possession of a land, house or garden-- according to the value of the subject-matter and the market value of the land, house or garden shall be deemed to be such value."
15. ' In the above clause it has been provided that where a suit for possession of land, house or garden is filed, the same is to be valued according to the value of subject-matter and it has further been provided that the value of subject-matter shall be deemed to be market-value of the same. This provision shows a marked difference with the provisions of newly added clause (iv-a) wherein only the word value of the property has been used. Now therefore, in view of the above difference between the two provisions, it is to be seen as to what was the intention of Legislature. Not only this but the words "value of the property" as used in clause (iv-a) are to be construed with reference to words "sale, gift, exchange or mortgage thereof". The well-settled principle of interpretation of statutes is that the provisions of the Statute, specially the fiscal statutes have to be read in favour of the subject. The law has to be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner and duty of Court is only to try and harmonise the various provisions of an Act, passed by Legislature and not to stretch the provisions of the said Act to the disadvantage of the subject. In order to ascertain the legislative intent all the constitutent parts of the Staiute are to be read together and each word, phrase or sentence is to he considered in the light of the general purpose and object of the Act itself. The Courts are not to read the words into the Statute which otherwise are not part of the statute itself.
16. Court has to see whether a reasonable meaning can be given after reconiling the various provisions contained in different sections. In the present Statute as shown above the two amendments made in the Court Fees Act, 1870 show that Legislature in the newly added caluse (iv- a) had intended the payment of court-fee to be made on the basis of the value as pertained to the "sale, gift, exchange or mortgage thereof' while in the substituted clause (v) in the intention was that the suit be valued according to "market value". It is, therefore, obvious that in the first provision mentioned above it was not the intention of the Legislature that the suit is to be valued in accordance with the market-value but it is to be in accordance with the value as mentioned in the four cases provided in newly added clause (iv-a) and the obvious inference therefore is that is to be the value as shown in the document:; of alienation. We are fortified in our above view on the principles of law of interpretation of statutes as laid down in the case of Muhammad Ayub v. Abdul Khaliq (Supreme Court AJ&K) reported in 1990 MLD 1293.
17. ' From the above discussion we have arrieved at the conclusion that the petitioner's case is governed by section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 and petitioners have to pay ad valorem court-fee stamp on the value of the property in dispute, a house, the value of which is shown at Rs, 30,240 as per PTD.
18. ' We accordingly set aside the orders passed by the District Judge, Sukkur on 18-3-1990 passed in Civil Revision 2/90 and also set aside the orders passed by the Second Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur on 2-1-1990. The said orders are modified to the extent that the petitioners are directed to pay court- fee stamps in the suit on the value of Rs,30,240. The present petition stands accepted subject to above modification. However, there will be no order as to costs.