JUDGMENT : DANIELS, J.:— The question for decision in this reference is whether, in the case of a cross-objection claiming possession of immovable property, the court fee is payable ad valorem on the value of the property or should be calculated on five times the land revenue in accordance with section 7, v. As is well known, the word “cross-objection” was introduced in the Court Fees Act for the first time by Act V of 1908. It appears in article 1 of the first schedule which relates to ad valorem fees. It was decided in 1917 by TUDBALL, J., in Lakhan Singh v. Ram Kishan Das, (1917) I.L.R., 40 All., 93, that an ad valorem fee is payable on a cross-objection even when the relief claimed by it is of a declaratory nature which would come under article 17 of schedule II. The reason is that article 1, schedule 1, makes all plaints, appeals and cross-objections chargeable with an ad valorem fee unless otherwise provided for in the Act. Plaints and memorandums of appeal of a declaratory nature are otherwise provided for in article 17 of schedule II; cross-objections are not. The appellant's counsel seeks to distinguish this ruling because in section 7 appeals are not separately mentioned. He argues, therefore, that the word “suits” in section 7 must be held to include cross-objections as well as appeals. This argument is historically unsound. Appeals have always been valued in accordance with section 7, whereas, until Act. Y of 1908, cross-objections paid a court fee of Rs. 2 only as applications. The point now raised appears to be precisely covered by the ruling of PIGGOTT, J., in Ishdat Tiwari v. Tameshwar Tiwari, (1923) I.L.R., 45 All., 537. In that case a decree had been given to the plaintiffs for the possession of property to the value of Rs. 100 and the cross-objections were directed against this portion of the decree. The argument raised on behalf of the objector was that court fee was payable on five times the land revenue, but Mr. Justice PIGGOTT held that it must be paid ad valorem on the value of the subject-matter. I accordingly hold that the office report is correct and that the objector must pay an ad valorem fee. I allow him two months' time within which to make good the deficiency.