JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is a defendant's revision against the order dated September 6, 1978 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi dismissing revision No. 106 of 1977-78/Banda against the order dated June 28, 1978 passed by learned Assistant Collector Ist Class, district Banda deciding issues Nos. 5, 6 and 7 as preliminary issues. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It has been argued that issue No. 5 was wrongly decided to the effect that according to hereditary rates court fee be paid; that the court fee was about damages advalorem. 4. It has been argued in reply that no advalorem court fees was payable on amount of damages claimed, and only court for regarding to one years rent was payable which was already paid. Reliance has been placed on 1966 A.L.J. 981 = 1966 R.D. 289 and 1968 A.L.J. 771 = 1967 R.D. 25. 5. It was held in Mangat v. Harbans and others 1964 R.D. 201 by Mr. S.S. Mitra, Member as follows:- "According to the entry in the column 6 of Serial 30 of Annexure III of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules as interpreted by the Supreme Court the valuation of the ejectment suit was to be made on the basis of one year's rent calculated at hereditary rates and court fee was to be paid as in the Court Fees Act while court fee on damages was to be paid as is Court Fees Act". This ruling that advalorem court fee was payable on the amount of damages claimed is no longer good law because in Baba Singh v. Bhagwan Singh 1956 R.D. 280 (S.C.) following the answer of the question referred to the Division Bench that in a suit for ejectment and damages under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, separate court fee need not be paid on the relief for damages but a total fee is payable on one year's rent calculated at hereditary rates. "It has been held 'the court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal shall be the same as on the plaint in a suit i.e. the court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal in an appeal presented by the defendants to challenge the decree for ejectment and damages passed in a suit under Section 209, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act shall be the same as on the plaint in a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the total court fee payable shall be on one year's rent calculated at hereditary rates". 6. It has been held by a Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in Smt. Bhasari Wali and another v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others as follows:- "The last contention of learned counsel was that the plaintiff had not paid any court fee on the amount of damages which he claimed and, therefore, no damages could be decreed. This suit was filed under Item No. 18 of Group B of the Fourth Schedule attached to the U.P. Tenancy Act. That item provides for suits under Section 160 and in the third column the provision is 'for the ejectment of a person occupying land without title and for damages'. This case therefore, refers to suit for ejectment as well as for damages and for such suits the provision regarding court fee is made in the last column which is as follows: As in the Court Fees Act, 1870, on the rent payable." 7. In Column 3 of Serial No. 94 of schedule II before the enforcement of the Amending Act No. XLVII of 1958 "suits for ejectment without title" alone was provided. The schedule was amended and words "and damages" were also added the conclusion of these words was a mere lacunae and it did not mean that suits for damages were not maintainable in the revenue courts prior to the passing of U.P. Act No. XXVII of 1968. 8. The word used in Section 200(1) shall be liable to ejectment on the suit in cases referred to in clause (a) above and (b)....., shall also be liable to pay damages. The word 'suit' used in the section got distinct meaning and it does not connote 'plaint' which has been used in Section 6 and Schedule I and II of Court Fees Act. 9. The word 'suit' used in the section got distinct meaning and it does not connote 'plaint' which has been used in Section 6 and Schedule I and II of Court Fees Act. 9. Under Act I of 1951 in a suit under Section 209 Court Fee is payable on the suit means that not on the plaint per Serial 20 Appendix III of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules has in the Court Fees Act, 1870 on one year's rent calculated at hereditary rates". 10. In a suit under Section 209 of Act I of 1951 both reliefs of ejectment and damages can be claimed as this is composite suit and for such suit court fee payable is only on one year's rent calculated at hereditary rates and no separate court fee is therefore payable advalorem on the amount of damages claimed because the court fee is not payable in such a case on the plaint and relief claimed in it but on the suit as a whole for both the reliefs of ejectment and damages and for this very purpose the word suit has been used in the section itself and in Appendix III Serial 20 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules and the court fee on the suit payable is mentioned in the column of proper court fee as mentioned above. 11. Section 2(iv) of Court Fees Act defines "suit" as follows:- Section 2(iv) "suit" includes first on second appeal from a decree in a suit (and also a Letters Patent Appeal)." 12. Thus suit includes first and second appeal also and the court fee payable on the suit is payable on the appeal as second appeal. 13. The word plaint used in Section 7 of the Court Fees Act with Schedule I include an appeal but the word plaint used in the Court Fees Act does not include appeal per definition of suit in that Act. 14. 13. The word plaint used in Section 7 of the Court Fees Act with Schedule I include an appeal but the word plaint used in the Court Fees Act does not include appeal per definition of suit in that Act. 14. The special provision of court fee regarding suit under Section 209 both for ejectment and damages has been provided, therefore, according to rule 238 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules also with Section 344(1) of the Act, the court fee payable on the composite suit for ejectment and damages under Section 209 of Act I of 1951 is payable on one year's rent worked out at hereditary rate which is also payable in first or second appeal. 15. Issue No. 6 was, therefore, decided rightly by the trial court that court fee was payable on one year's rent payable at hereditary rates. Therefore, this revision has got no force as it as liable to be rejected and the orders passed by both the courts below are liable to be confirmed. 16. In view of the above, this revision is hereby rejected with costs. The orders passed by both the courts below are hereby confirmed. 17. Let the trial court's file be sent to it atonce for expeditious disposal of the suit.