' The appellants purchased the suit land vide a Mutation No: 230 attested on 20-12-1974 for a consideration of Rs,90,000. The respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit land by pre- emption. He claimed that he was a co-sharer in the suit land, in the estate and a collateral of the vendor. He alleged that the amount of Rs,90,000 mentioned in the mutation is fictitious and that only a sum of Rs,28,000 was actually paid as the sale price. The appellants filed a written statement. They objected that value for purposes of court-fee is incorrect and proper court-fee has not been paid. On merits it was averred that a sum of Rs,90,000 was fixed in good faith and actually paid as price of the suit land. The superior right of the respondent was also denied.
2. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court found the respondent to be a collateral of the vendor as also a co-owner in the estate. It was also held that a sum of Rs,90,000 was fixed in good faith and actually was paid as price of the land. However, it was found that the court-fee has not been properly assessed and paid and pursuant to the said finding, the suit was dismissed vide a judgment and decree dated, 23-5-1983. Feeling aggrieved the respondent filed an appeal which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Multan who allowed the same and decreed the suit of the respondent subject to payment of Rs,90,000 vide a judgment and decree, dated 8-3-1984.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Additional District Judge was not possessed of pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal. Further contends that two of the L.Rs, of Maqsood-ul-Hassan original defendant No,1 in the suit, were minors but in the amended plaint guardian-ad-litem was not appointed.
' Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, supports the (impugned judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge.
4. I have gone through the records of the two learned lower Courts. I find that in para.8 of the plaint, the value of the suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was fixed at Rs,28,000. According to the learned counsel, since the market value of the suit land was fixed as Rs,90,000 by the learned trial Court, the first appeal before the learned District Judge was not competent. The argument loses sight of the point that the suit as a whole was dismissed and it was the decree in its entirety that was challenged by the respondent before the learned District Judge. This was a suit for pre- emption and the learned Additional District Judge has found as a fact and correctly that the land formed a definite share of the estate and was assessed to land revenue of Rs,2. The jurisdictional value would thus be 30 times of the said land revenue. A similar question came up before the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Ellahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Bilqees and others" PLD 1985 SC 393. Although the apex Court did not appreciate the fixation of a notional value for purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction in case of pre-emption suits for possession of agricultural land yet it was held as follows:-- "The conclusion, therefore, is that for ascertaining the forum of appeals in land suits under section 18 of the Ordinance the value of the original suit as determined under the Rules framed under section 3 of the Suits Valuation Act for purposes of jurisdiction will be the determining factor and not the market value or sale price of the subject-matter of the suit."
I, therefore, hold that the learned Additional District Judge was possessed of pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and to decide the appeal.
5. Coming to the second point raised by the learned counsel, it is true that in the list of L.Rs, of Maqsood-ul-Hassan deceased defendant No,1, filed by the appellants Syed Masood-ul-Hassan and Mst. Zameer Fatima were described as minors and it is also true that in the amended plaint they were not described as minors neither was a guardian ad-litem appointed. However, the learned counsel has been unable to demonstrate as to what prejudice, if any, has been caused to the said persons. They were substituted for the original defendant who had already filed his defence in the Court and under the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 4, C.P.C., the said respondents were entitled to raise a defence in accordance with the written statement filed by their predecessor-in-interest. Learned counsel has been unable to point out as to whether the said appellants did wish to lead some evidence, which they could not because of the said formal defect in the proceedings. Besides I find that the amended plaint was filed in the year 1979 whereas the suit was decided on 23 5-1983. Throughout this period, minority was not claimed on behalf of the said appellants. I have already noted above that it has not been demonstrated that any prejudice has been caused to the said appellants. In this view of the matter defect is not fatal. Reference may be made to the case of "Nadeem Shahid and 2 others v. Muhammad Sharif and another" PLD 1986 Lahore 373.
' No other point has been urged. The R.S.A. Is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.