1. The question for decision ID this reference is whether in the case of a cross-objection claiming possession of an immovable property the Court-fee is payable ad valorem, on the value of the property or should not 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 I of First Schedule which relates to ad valorem fees. It was decided in 1917 by Tudball, J., in Lakham Singh v. Ram Kishan Das (1918) 40 All. 93 that an ad valorem fee is payable on cross-objection even when the relief claimed by it is of a declaratory nature which could come under Article 17 of Schedule II. The reason is that Article 1, Schedule I 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 in 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 V 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 Piggot, J, in Ishdat Tiwari v. Tameshwar Tiwari A.I.R. 1924 All. 175. 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 ors five times the land revenue, but Mr. Justice Piggot 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.