MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. - The petitioner filed a suit against the private respondents seeking declaration that the suit property stands gifted to him and he be declared owner Of the property on the basis of said gift. The private respondents tiled application under Order 7, Rule 1U CPC, praying that the petitioner be directed to correct the value of the suit for purpose of Court-fee. This application was dismissed after contest by petitioner by learned Trial Court vide order dated 1.7.1997. A revision was tiled against this order which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, who proceeded to allow the same vide order dated 22.4.1998 and he directed the petitioner to pay a Court-fee of Rs. 14,998/- on the plaint by 22.5.1998.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Bashir Ahmad v. Mushtaq Ahmad (PLD 1985 Lah. 112) argued that under Section 7(iv)(e) of the Court-Fees Act, 1870. Option lays with the petitioner to value his suit. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand refers to the Punjab Amendment in Section 7 whereby Section 7(iv)(a) was added and Which provides that a suit for a declaratory decree as to riglet in or title to immovable property based on inter alia, gift is to be valued according to the value of the property.
3. I have gone through the plaint and the gift-deed being relied upon by the petitioner. In view of amendment made in law referred to by learned counsel for the respondents 1 am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is covered by said Section 7(iv)
(c) of the Court-Fees Act, 1870. This leaves resolution of question as to what should he value of the suit. The learned Additional District Judge has recorded statement of one of the petitioners who stated that market value of the land is Rs. 2-1/2 lacs. On the basis of said statement learned Additional District Judge proceeded to hold that since market value is in excess of Rs. 2,00,000/- maximum amount of Court-fee i.e., Rs. 15,000/- is payable. The reasoning of the learned Additional District Judge is not correct. In the said Section 7 of Court-Fees Act term "market value" has been used in para (v) thereof. However, term used in Section 7(iv)(a) is "value of the property". It does not appear to be case of omission but it certainly appears that Legislature intended that the value of the property for the purpose of Court-fee under the amended provision is to he different from the term "market value" used in said para (v). To my mind word "value" is referable to the document/transaction which is made basis for claiming a declaratory decree. A copy of the gift- deed is on the file and it is recorded therein that value of the property being gifted is Rs. 40,000/-. It is value recorded in document of gift which is "value of the property" within meaning of said Section 7(iv)(a) of the Court-Fees Act. Accordingly, I find that the learned Additional District Judge exceeded his jurisdiction by directing petitioner to pay Court-fee which he was not otherwise required by law to pay. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore is set aside. The petitioner shall now pay Court-fee of Rs. 2,998/- on the plaint on or before 31:10.2000 failing which his plaint shall stand rejected.