The question involved in this case is one of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court in which the suit has been filed. It is a suit for possession of 30 kanals and 4 marlas of land comprised in Khasras Nos. 151 to 157situate in village Gandu Tehsil Bhadarwah. The controversy raised is over the court-fee to be paid on the plaint. The plaintiffs case is that the transfer made by their mother during their minority in favour of the defendants-appellant was void because she h id no power to alienate the property and further that it was vitiated by fraud and undue influence. It is alleged that the property worth more than Rs. 10,000 was sold in the year 1995 for Rs. 3,000 only. The defendants, inter-alia, pleaded that, court-fee should have been paid on the market value of the land and thereupon the suit would be beyond the cognizance of the Court in which it was filed as the plaintiffs had themselves valued the land at more than r ;pees ten thousand. The court-fee was paid in terms of section 7 (v.) (b) of the Court-fee; Act in other words upon eight times the land revenue. The trial Court, in the first instance, held that the suit was not cognizable by it. On appeal the lower appellate Court overset it and held that the court-tee paid was proper and the suit fell within the jurisdiction of that Court. On further appeal to the High Court the case was remanded for determination of the question : Whether the land in suit was an entire estate or a definite share of an estate paying annual revenue to Government or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid" or whether in terms of clause (d) of section 7 (v) it was separately assessed. On this remand the trial Court held that the land has been mutated in the name of the defendant Kunjlal and separately "allotted to land revenue", and that the court-fee paid in terms of section 7 (t) (b) was proper. With this finding the lower appellate Court agreed. This is now the defendants petition for Revision. On this remand the trial Court held that the land has been mutated in the name of the defendant Kunjlal and separately "allotted to land revenue", and that the court-fee paid in terms of section 7 (t) (b) was proper. With this finding the lower appellate Court agreed. This is now the defendants petition for Revision. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the land is not separately assessed in terms of the provisions of section 7 (v) (b) and that the court-fee should have been paid according to section 7 (v) (d) i. e. on the market value of the property. The relevant portions of section 7 clause (v} (b) and(d) of the Court-fees Act, may be reproduced :- Section 7, Clause (v). In suits for the possession of land, according to the value of the subject matter, and such value shall be deemed to be. (b) Where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid; eight times the revenue so payable, (d) Where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed ; the market value of the land. The lower appellate Court has arrived, in agreement with the first Court at certain findings of fact which have not been challenged here. These are that it is admitted by the parties that the land sold "does not form an entire estate or a definite share of an estate". The simple question, therefore, that remains is whether this land forms part of an estate paying revenue and whether or not it is separately assessed. On an answer to this question would depend whether the court-fee is to be paid on eight times the land revenue or on the market value. The lower appellate Court in recording a finding in favour of the plaintiffs has been impressed by the fact that the land is separately assessed and has been so recorded in the Collectors register. This conclusion is stated to have been obtained from the evidence of the patwari and the jamabandi which has been filed. The lower appellate Court in recording a finding in favour of the plaintiffs has been impressed by the fact that the land is separately assessed and has been so recorded in the Collectors register. This conclusion is stated to have been obtained from the evidence of the patwari and the jamabandi which has been filed. The patwari stated that at the time of the mutation of the transfer made by the plaintiffs mother in the year 1995, the land sold was entered in the name of the transferee and at that time the proportion of the land revenue that was to be paid by the transferee was calculated and sanctioned by the Tehsildar and was so entered in the jamabandi. The lower appellate Court has considered this process to be the one contemplated in terms of section 7 (v) (b). In using the evidence of the patwari and jamabandi in this way the provisions of the Court-fees Act, as well as other essentials in this behalf have not been taken into consideration. It would I. e noticed that the word "estate" for the purposes of paragraph 7 has been explained in the explanation attached to that section and in that context it means any land subject to the payment of: revenue, for which the proprietor. shall have executed a separate engagement to Government, or which, in the absence of such engagement, shall have been separately assessed with revenue". Rules regarding Remissions and Reductions notified under section 35 of the Court-fees Act by His Highness also give a clue to the meaning of word estate and the manner in which the revenue is to be assessed. The rules applicable to article 1 , schedule 1, requires that, when a part of an estate paying annual revenue to the Government under a settlement which is not permanent is record in the Collectors register as separately assessed with such revenue, the value of the subject matter of a suit for the possession of. a fractional share of that part shall, for the purposes of the computation of the amount of the (sic) chargeable in the suit, be deemed not to exceed eight timers such portion of the revenue separately assessed on that part, as may be ratably payable in respect of the share". a fractional share of that part shall, for the purposes of the computation of the amount of the (sic) chargeable in the suit, be deemed not to exceed eight timers such portion of the revenue separately assessed on that part, as may be ratably payable in respect of the share". The explanation requires that there must either be a separate engagement for payment of revenue by the proprietor of the fractional part of the land or it must, be separately assessed. The rule with regard to the remissions and reductions requires that the estate is to be regarded as a distinct unit where it is assessed to land revenue at the time of settlement and is so recorded in the Collectors register. Yet another consideration for the purposes of the court-fee should not be counted out. The words separately assessed loosely interpreted may mean a number of things but in the context of section 7 they mean "separately assessed in respect of the particular bit of land, as distinct from something which is assessed as part of a whole, and not where the particular bit of land can be shown as liable to a portion of revenue noted in respect of a whole area by a process of a mathematical calculation at the rate charged per acre". Reference in this behalf may usefully be made to 47 I. C. 543, A. I. R. 1933 Allahabad 414 and A. I. R. 1937 Allahabad 206. In all these cases an estate has been considered as separate estate or part of an estate where it is either assessed to land revenue at the time of the settlement and has been recorded as such or where there has been a separate engagement by the proprietor for the payment of the land revenue on that part. In this case the evidence of the patwari and the jamabandi filed would go to show that the assessment of the land revenue of the land in dispute is not because there was a separate engagement by the proprietor of the land in the propei way or there was assessment in the usual course at the time of the settlement. What happened was that rateable proportion of the revenue to be payable by the transferor for the land sold to him was ascertained and was noted in the jamabandi. What happened was that rateable proportion of the revenue to be payable by the transferor for the land sold to him was ascertained and was noted in the jamabandi. In the Provinces the provision requires that this recording in the Collectors register must be after the assessment at the time of the settlement and not. And to the same effect is the procedure here as indicated in the rules regarding Remissions and Reductions. The distinction must be kept boldly in view; it is easy enough to ascertain the proportionate amount of the government Revenue out a fractional share of a revenue paying estate. But it is not possible o ascertain the proportionate liability of a specific part of an estate for payment of Government Revenue 11 it is not separately assessed In the latter case the matter would be governed by subsection (a). Nor is the liability of the transferee to pay the revenue calculated by the patwari or the last of his having paid that revenue in the ordinary course would mean separate engagement for the payment of revenue as is contemplated under the Land Revenue Act. Neither in terms of the Land Revenue Act nor for the purposes of the court-fee is the arrangement evidenced in this case, such as would characterize the land "separately assessed". The case, therefore, would fall under section 7 (v) (d) because the land in suit forms part of an estate paying revenue to the Government hut is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed. In this view the finding arived at by the Courts below is erroneous and should be, set aside. I would, therefore, accept this revision and maintain the order passed by the trial Court in the first instance. But because of the legal difficulty involved in this case I shall leave the parties to bear their own costs,