1. GUL ZARIN KIANI, J.- Respondent is real sister of the petitioner. She inherited 79 kanals of land in village Goharwala of Tehsil Mankera in District Bhakkar from her father. Petitioner had also received his own share of inheritance. Date of death of the father and the inheritance mutation sanctioned on his demise were not on file. By mutation No. 2492, attested on 27-4-1992, respondent No.1 was alleged to have conveyed her above land by way of sale to the petitioner for a' consideration of Rs.
2. 1,20,000/-. Sale of land and payment of price for it were verbal.
2. On 25-7-1992, respondent No.1 brought a civil suit against the petitioner for annulment of the above sale-mutation on score of fraud and misrepresentation, and, it was averred that she had neither sold the land-in- dispute, nor, received consideration for it and the petitioner by an act of impersonation got the mutation entered and attested in his favour. Valuation of the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was assessed at Rs. 400/- in para-5 of the plaint. Petitioner submitted his defence statement and among other pleas objected to the valuation assessed by respondent No.1 for the purpose of court-fee and, jurisdiction. It was asserted that the price paid for the land must govern the valuation for court-fee and jurisdiction. Trial Court framed necessary issues and took out the valuation-issue for decision first. By order dated 18-10- 1992, it found that the valuation of the suit must be fixed at Rs. 1,20,000/- on the market value of the land alleged by the petitioner. Consequently, it called upon respondent No.1 to correct the valuation given in the plaint and pay the requisite court-fee of Rs. 9,000/- on the plaint till 31-10-1992. Requisition for payment of more court-fee on the plaint was objected to, in revision preferred by respondent No.1 in the lower Court. Revision was allowed on 12-1-1993 by learned District Judge, Bhaikkar, who set aside the requisition by the learned trial Court. This has brought this petitioner in a writ petition *to this Court. It was urged that the order passed in revision was illegal and the view taken of court-fee payable on the plaint in the lower Court was correct. I am unable to agree with the contention.
3. Respondent No.1 disassociated from the transaction embodied in the impugned mutation. She denied her appearance before the Revenue Officer and disowned the sale of the land and receipt of consideration for it ascribed to her in the mutation proceedings. In fact, she alleged to be not a party to the sale-mutation and described it as fraud and fabrication. For computation and payment of court- fee, her suit fell in Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court-Fees Act and not under Section 7(iv)(c)(iv-a) as amended. In terms of Section 7(iv)(c), respondent was entitled to put her own valuation on the relief sought in the plaint. Her suit was for declaration of rights and consequential relief flowing out of it. It was not at all a suit for cancellation of a document to which respondent No.1 was not a party. Therefore, she could not be put to value the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction on total value of the land shown to have been paid for it in the sanctioned mutation. The view of fiscal law taken by the revisional Court was correct. It could not be characterized as without jurisdiction. Further, in a matter of payability of court-fee falling between the suitor and the State, defendant had not much real grievance to make. A judgment of the indian Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1961 Supreme Court 1299 on a question of court-fee regarding nature of grievance of a defendant in the suit was impressive as well as instructive.
4. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is without merits and is dismissed in limine.