In the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Present: 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan  
Mr. Justice Umar Ata Bandial  
 
Civil Appeals No.1194 to 1197 of 2014 
(On appeal from judgment of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated  
21.7.2014 passed in R.F.A. Nos.6-P, 16-P/2014 & C.R. 105-P & 106-P/2014) 
 
Zafeer Gul (in all appeals) 
Appellant 
Versus 
Dr. Riaz ali & others (in C.A. No.1194/2014) 
Anar Gul & others (in C.A. No.1195/2014) 
Mst. Farzana Javed & others (in C.A. No.1196/2014) 
Haji Sattar Gul & others (in C.A. No.1197/2014) 
Respondents 
Appellant (in all appeals): 
In person  
 
For respondents No.1,3-7: Qazi Jawwad Ehsanullah, ASC 
(in C.A. No.1194-1195/2014) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For respondents No.3-6: Qazi Jawwad Ehsanullah, ASC  
(in C.A. No.1196-1197/2014) 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
14.5.2015 
Judgment 
 
 
 Anwar Zaheer Jamali, J – These four connected 
appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 21.7.2014, 
passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers of the Peshawar 
High Court, Peshawar, in R.F.A. Nos.6-P of 2014, 16-P of 
2014, and C.R. Nos.105-P of 2014 & 106-P of 2014. In these 
cases the order dated 16.12.2013, passed by the learned 
Additional District Judge, Peshawar, thereby ordering return 
of the memo of two civil appeals, was challenged by the 
respondents on the ground that looking to the valuation of the 
suit in the plaint and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of 
C.A. No.1194 of 2014 etc. 
2
Additional District Judge, Peshawar at the time of filing civil 
appeals No.58 of 2013 and 59 of 2013, on 5.10.2011, and in 
view of the relevant provisions of the Suit Valuation Act 1887 
and the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, such remedy was 
rightly availed. Therefore, the order for return of memo of 
appeals for its presentation before the concerned forum was 
uncalled for and illegal.  
2. 
We have heard the arguments of the appellant 
in person and the respondents’ learned ASC and have perused 
the case record, which reveals that through impugned 
judgment, relying upon the ratio of the judgment in the case of 
Muhammad Ayub & four others versus Dr. Obaidullah and six 
others  (1999 SCMR 394) and some other case law, the 
Peshawar High Court set aside the order dated 16.12.2013, 
impugned before it and remanded the case to the appellate 
Court, which at the relevant time had pecuniary jurisdiction to 
hear these appeals and decide the same on merits and in 
accordance with law. In doing so, the High Court has aptly 
taken into account the fact that as the civil suit for partition in 
respect of the disputed property, instituted before the trial 
Court, was valued at Rs.230 for the purpose of jurisdiction 
and Rs.15 for the purpose of Court fee, therefore, in terms of 
section 18 of the Civil Courts Ordinance, 1962, such valuation 
disclosed in the plaint was to be considered the value of the 
suit property for determining the forum of appeal qua 
pecuniary jurisdiction of the appellate Court.  
C.A. No.1194 of 2014 etc. 
3
3. 
To expound the legal position in relation to the 
valuation of a suit for partition and separate possession for the 
purpose of jurisdiction, it will be pertinent to mention here 
that every co-sharer in the immovable property is legally 
deemed to be in its joint possession to the extent of his 
undivided share. Therefore, in a suit of such nature, law 
permits him tentative valuation of his share in the immovable 
property as specified in the plaint for the purpose of pecuniary 
jurisdiction, which is subject to final determination by the 
Court; till then the valuation shown in the plaint is to be 
deemed as proper value of the suit property for the purpose of 
availing the remedy of appeal qua determining the forum of 
appeal. For further guidance see: Ajiruddin Moudal and 
another versus Rahman Fakir and others (PLD 1961 S.C. 
349).  
4. 
As a result of above discussion, no exception 
could be taken to such findings in the impugned judgment 
enunciating the above legal position.  
5. 
Accordingly, above captioned four appeals are 
dismissed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Announced at Islamabad  
On 25th May, 2015 
 
                        Judge 
Approved for reporting. 
Riaz 
Judge 
 
 
 
                Judge 
 
       
                 Judge                            
C.A. No.1194 of 2014 etc. 
4