GUL MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order regarding the valuation of court-fee in a pre-emption suit. The petitioner, a tenant, filed a suit for possession through pre-emption regarding a portion of land purchased by the respondents. Although the petitioner's suit was initially decreed for a specific portion of the land, the appellate and revisional authorities, and subsequently the High Court, held that the petitioner was liable to pay court-fee based on the entire land area involved in the original sale transaction, rather than the area for which the suit was decreed. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether a pre-emptor is required to pay court-fee on the extent of the land for which the suit is decreed or on the entire extent of the land sold. Finding this to be a significant question of law requiring further examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine the correct basis for calculating court-fee in pre-emption proceedings.
- Whether a pre-emptor is liable to pay court-fee on the extent of land for which the suit is decreed or on the entire extent of the land sold?
- Is the court-fee in a pre-emption suit determined by the claim put forward or the relief ultimately granted?
- Finance Act, 1973
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 12-4-1981.
2. Land measuring 104 kanals 11 marlas situate in Mauza Pipli, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh, was purchased by respondents 1 to 4 through a registered sale-deed for an ostensible price of Rs, 30,000. The petitioner was a tenant over 31 kanals 12 marlas out of the abovementioned land and filed a suit for possession through pre-emption on the basis of superior right of pre-emption as a tenant. The suit was contested but ultimately the Assistant Commissioner, Muzaffargarh, decreed the suit of the petitioner for 31 kanals 12 marlas vide order dated 29-4-1980. The respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, and it was during the pendency of the appeal that the petitioner was directed to pay court-fee in terms of Finance Act, 1973. The requisite court-fee was deposited but the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) accepted the appeal of the respondents vide order dated 31-1-1981. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue, on 5-3-1981 and the writ petition of the petitioner was also dismissed through the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the orders of the Courts below. While repelling the contention of the petitioner in the High Court, the learned Judge observed: The petitioner had instituted proceedings in respect of the entire land measuring 104 kanals 11 marlas purchased by respondents Nos.1 to 4. He was liable to pay court-fee on the entire claim put forward by him. The fact that his claim of pre-emption was allowed only to the extent of 31 kanals 12 marlas by the Court was irrelevant for purposes of payment of court-fee."
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the above finding the question to be considered in this case is whether the petitioner/pre-emptor has, under the law, to pay court- fee to the extent the suit decreed or in respect of the land sold. We thus grant leave in the matter.
Security Rs,5,000. The appeal shall be heard on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.