Law: Court-Fees Act, 1870

Section: S. 7 (v) (c

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: Art. 10

Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913

Section: S. 30

  Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), S. 7 (v) (c)-Land assessed to land revenue but suchrevenue not fixed-Land, partly banjar, partly ghair mumkin and partly covered with trees-To be assessed for purpose of court fee "as a whole "-Land yielding profits-Cl. (c), held, applicable.   Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 10-(Pre-emption suit) Sale of share of joint holding-Subject of sale not admitting of physical possession-No instrument of sale executed-Art. 10 inapplicable - Limitation for suit to be determined by S. 30, Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913).   Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S. 30-(Pre-emption suit)-Limitation-Vendee inpossession of land (as tenant) from before date of sale-Time to be reckoned from date of mutation [Gyan Singh v. Gyan Singh and another A I R 1923 Lah. 654 ; Misri Khan v. Shahji and another A I R 1924 Lah. 394 and Dhanna v. Lekh Ram and others A I R 1924 Lah. 695 ref].   Pre-emption- Right of-Oral sale of property of more than Rs. 100 in value in contravention of S. 54, Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)-Not Immune to exercise of right of pre-emption-[Abdul Khaliq v. Sher Muhammad and others P L D 1961 B J 79 ; Niaz Ahmad and others v. Mian Abdur Rahman and others P L D 1961 B J 1 ; Janki v. Girjadat and another I L R 7 All. 482 and Begum and others v. Muhammad Yakub and another I L R 16 All. 344 ref ; Jangi v. Jhanda and others P L D 1961 B J 34 distinguished].   Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955, S. 10 Rules made by Punjab Government re determination of value of suits for purposes of jurisdiction contained in Chapter 3-D, Vol. I, (Lahore) High Court Rules and Orders, in cases under S. 7 (v), Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)-Not applicable to Bahawalpur State-Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S. 3 Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 224.       JUDGMENT   MASUD AHMAD, J.-The facts, out of which this second appeal bas arisen, are somewhat complicated, and, briefly stated, are as follows :-   Muhammad Ramzan and Allah Bachaya respondents filed a suit in the Court of the Sub-Judge at Ahmadpur East, for recovery of possession of 89 kanals of land, being 254/408th share…