Full Judgment
1. This case has been put up before this Bench for the consideration whether the court-fee paid in the Court below on this claim was sufficient. The suit was for the recovery of a three-fourth, out of two-third share in khewat No. 1/2 by pre-emption. The Inspector of Stamps-has submitted that the case comes under Section 7(v)(d), whereas the Stamp Reporter has suggested that the case should fall, under Section 7(v)(b), Court-fees Act. The; case would be governed by Sub-section (b), if the land forms an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual, revenue to Government or forms part off such estate and is recorded as aforesaid, but would be governed by Sub-section (d) if it. forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as aforementioned. The distinction, in our opinion, is perfectly obvious. Where there is an estate paying annual revenue to Government and a fractional share of that estate is transferred, then it is easy, to ascertain the proportionate amount of the Government revenue on the property transferred. On the other hand, if the; property transferred is not a fractional, share of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is only a specified part of such estate and such specified part is not. separately assessed to revenue, it is not. possible to ascertain the proportionate liability of that specified plot so far as the payment of Government revenue is concerned. In. the former case, where the revenue can be ascertained, the case, would be governed by Sub-section (b) while in the latter case by Sub-section (d).
2. There is really no conflict of opinion in Haliman v. Media : AIR1933 All414 and the case in Beti Kuari v. Harnath Singh S.A. No. 1239 of 1935, decided on 14th April 1936. In the former case, the property in question was a fractional share of a khewat khata which was not separately assessed to revenue. It was, therefore, not possible to ascertain the proportionate liability of that property. On the other hand, in the latter case, the property in question was a definite share of a particular patti which had been separately assessed to revenue and was recorded as such. It was, therefore, clear that Sub-section (d) applied to the former case while Sub-section (b) applied to the latter. In the present case the khewat produced shows that khewat No. 1/2 is a distinct unit, a separate estate and assessed separately to revenue. A fraction of this distinct unit being in dispute, it is easy to ascertain the proportionate amount of revenue assessable on this property. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case is governed by Sub-section (b) and that the report of the Stamp Reporter is correct. There is accordingly no deficiency on account of the court-fee paid in the Court below.