| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1949 SLG 79 1949 SLD 79 1949 PLD 8 |
Lahore High Court
First Appeal No. 69 of 1946, decided on 19th January 1949, from the order of Sodhi Durga Parshad, Subordinate judge, 1st Class, Lahore, dated the 8th January 1946
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, AG. C.J. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, CORNELIUS, MUHAMMAD, JAN AND MUHAMMAD KHURSHID ZAMAN, JJ
Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Ashraf for Appellants, Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din and Akbar Ali for
Respondents and Inayat Ullah for
Respondent
First Appeal No. 69 of 1946, decided on 19th January 1949, from the order of Sodhi Durga Parshad, Subordinate judge, 1st Class, Lahore, dated the 8th January 1946
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, AG. C.J. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, CORNELIUS, MUHAMMAD, JAN AND MUHAMMAD KHURSHID ZAMAN, JJ
Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Ashraf for Appellants, Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din and Akbar Ali for
Respondents and Inayat Ullah for
Respondent
Mian KARAM ILAHI
VS
MUHAMMAD BASHIR and others
Law: Suits Valuation Act, 1887
Section: 8
Law: Court Fees Act, 1870
Section: 7(iv)(c),ScheduleII,Art.17
(a) Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1887), S. 8 -Whether value for purposes of jurisdiction determines Court-fee payable on suit under S. 7 (iv) (c) of Court-Fees Act (VII of 1870); or vice versa. It is the value for purposes of Court-fee that determines that value for purposes of jurisdiction. And under section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court fees Act (VII of 1870), plaintiff has an absolute discretion to put his own valuation on the relief that he claims and the Court has no jurisdiction to question the valuation however arbitrary it may be. 111 P R 1913 (F B) followed. I L R 9 Lab. 366 ; A I R 1922 Lab. 236 ; A I R 1931 Lab. 307 ; I L R 13 Lab. 788 ; P L R 458 ; 116 1 C 908 and 40 P L R 204 referred. A I R 1941 Lah. 97 (F B); I L R 8 Lah. 531; A I R 1936 Lah. 703; A I R 1935 Lah. 698; A I R 1932 Lah. 132; A I R 1931 Lah. 307 ; 79 1 C 358 and 24 1 C 679 overruled. (Per Munir, Ag. C. J.)-"Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act provides wherein certain kinds of suits, including suits referred to in section 7 (iv) (c), Court-fees are that payable ad valorem under the Court-fees Act, 1870 the value as determinable for the computation of Court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction shall be the same. This section at first sight gives the impression that in suits to which this section applies the value, for purposes of Court-fees and the value for purposes of jurisdiction must be the same and that if one is known the other must follow it. This, however, is a superficial and wholly erroneous view as the section is not susceptible of any interpretation other than that in order to determine the value for purposes of jurisdiction in such suits the value for purposes of Court-fee must first be ascertained, and that the value so ascertained shall be the value for purposes of jurisdiction. The first step, therefore, in all such cases is to ascertained the value for purposes of Court-fee. (b) Court-fees Act (VII of 1870), Schedule II, Art. 17.-Suit for simple declaration-On defendant's objections found to be one for declaration and consequential relief ---Plaintiff should be allowed to put his own valuation for Court-fees-Valuation for jurisdiction follows automatically.…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492