JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagulpore, dated the 23rd May 1906, which appears to be an order rejecting the plaint because the Plaintiff Appellant in this Court did not pay the deficit Court-fee as directed in a previous order, dated the 22nd idem. That previous order refers to another order, passed on the 16th May 1906, which is to the following effect:--"l am of opinion that the share of the revenue-paying estate, which has been claimed in this case, is 8 annas which is not a definite share recorded in the Collectorate and which has not been separately assessed. Hence the present case is governed by sec. 7, sub-sec. V, cl. (d) of the Court Fees Act. The Plaintiff has himself valued the 8 annas share at Rs. 16,000, but he has paid Rs. 25 only as Court-fee on the plaint. Ordered that the Plaintiff do pay the balance of the Court-fee of Rs. 630 on or before 21st May 1906." Between these two dates, namely, the 16th May and the 23rd May, there were certain proceedings by way of review. The application of the Plaintiff for review of the order of the Subordinate Judge, dated the 16th May 1906, was rejected by the Court. It has been contended, though not very seriously, on behalf of the Defendants, that no appeal lies against an order of this kind rejecting the application for review. But, as we have already stated, the real order appealed from is the order rejecting the plaint, which has the force of a decree, and this is how the appeal has been described. We, therefore, think that this appeal can be maintained. 2. On behalf of the Plaintiff it has been contended that the valuation was duly made with reference to sec. 7, sub sec. V, cl. (a), Court Fees Act, VII of 1870. 3. We are not concerned with the three annas share of the property because the Plaintiff has withdrawn his prayer for confirmation of possession over that share; but as regards the other share, namely, 5 annas, the plaint discloses the fact that it was sought to recover possession of that share. V, cl. (a), Court Fees Act, VII of 1870. 3. We are not concerned with the three annas share of the property because the Plaintiff has withdrawn his prayer for confirmation of possession over that share; but as regards the other share, namely, 5 annas, the plaint discloses the fact that it was sought to recover possession of that share. The question is whether ten times the proportionate Government revenue payable in respect of that share was the proper value to be taken for the purposes of the Court-fee payable; or whether the market-value of that share, being a proportionate amount of Rs. 16,000, ought to be taken for the purposes of assessing the Court-fee. 4. We have not been referred to any authority directly In point, and the question, therefore, is res Integra. But the decision In Hubibul Hossein v. Mahomed (sic) I. L. R. 8 Cal. 192 (1881) supports us in the view that we shall express. 5. Reading cl. (a), sub-sec. V, see 7 of the Act, we think that when land, which is the Subject-matter of a suit, is a definite share (such as five annas) of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, the Court-fee should be fixed on the value as mentioned, that Is, ten times the proportionate revenue payable annually. It is true that the second part of cl. (a) contemplates land which Is part of a permanently settled estate, such part having been separately assessed by the Collector with annual revenue. If the Legislature had intended that the 'definite share' mentioned in the first part of cl. (a) must also be a definite share separately assessed with revenue by the Collector, as in the second part of that clause, it would have said so; but on the face of the plaint, 5 annas is a definite share of an estate; whether it is separately assessed with revenue or not, does not matter. 6. The case contemplated by cl. (d) is of a very different description. Though it is not necessary to decide that point, it is possible that some allusion is made in cl. (a) and in cl. (d), to the different separate accounts mentioned in secs. 10 and 11 of the Revenue Sale Law, Act XI of 1859. Cl. (d) is in two parts, but those parts are linked together by the conjunctive "and"--therein differing from cl. (a) and in cl. (d), to the different separate accounts mentioned in secs. 10 and 11 of the Revenue Sale Law, Act XI of 1859. Cl. (d) is in two parts, but those parts are linked together by the conjunctive "and"--therein differing from cl. (a) which uses the disjunctive "or." The principle underlying the distinction between the two clauses seems to be that Court-fee must be paid on the market-value of distinct plots because they may be the most valuable part of the estate and the rule of proportion not having been applied by the Collector cannot be invoked by the owner. But the rule naturally applies to a definite share of an estate, because it is a share in each plot. However that may be, cl. (d) does not provide for the case of a "definite share:" and, as we have already said, five annas of a property is a definite share. The Subordinate Judge is wrong in his reading of the section. 7. We accordingly set aside the decision complained of, and direct the lower Court to admit the plain, and to try the suit with regard to the five annas share in accordance with law. We assess the costs at five gold mohurs.