The main legal point established in the judgment is that ad valorem court fee must be paid on the amount in dispute in an appeal against a redemption suit, as per Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court-fees Act.

( 1 ) THE question before us at present in this second appeal is as to the amount of court-fee payable on the memo of appeal. The pltfs. filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage with possession evidenced by a deed of mortgage for Rs. 800. They claimed to do so as purchasers of the mortgaged properties from defts. 1 to 6. Deft. 7, who is the appellant before us, pleaded that the pltfs. were not entitled so to redeem as the sale in their favour was nominal and collusive and was not meant to convey any title at all and that he himself had subsequently purchased the properties from defts. 1 to 6 in pursuance of a prior agreement of sale of which the pltfs. had notice. He also pleaded that he had spent monies for re-building and improving the first item mortgaged which is a house, as it had fallen down, that he had also paid some taxes and that in any event he was entitled to receive these sums aggregating Rs. 3,506-8-0 before the pltfs. could redeem him. The pltfs. paid a court-fee of Rs. 80 on the plaint under Section 4 (ix), Mysore Court fees Act, which runs in the same terms as the corresponding Section 7 (ix ). Indian Court-fees Act, as follows:

"to redeem: ix. In suits against a mortgagee for the recovery of the property mortgaged. . . according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage:"

( 2 ) THE learned Munsiff passed a decree holding that the pltfs. were entitled to redeem deft. 7 but that they were bound to pay Rs. 2,960 to him including the mortgage money as being the value of the improvements made and taxes paid by him. Against that decision the pltfs. preferred an appeal in R. A. No. 151/48-49 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Kolar complaining that the amount decreed as payable to deft. 7 was much too high. Deft. 7 also preferred an appeal in R. A. No. 153/48-49 against the portion of the decree declaring that the pltfs. were entitled to redeem. The Subordinate Judge allowed the pltfs' appeal R. A. No. 151/48-49 in part. He held that deft. 7 had failed to prove that he had effected improvements and therefore, reduced the sum payable to him to Rs. 949-12-0 including the mortgage amount. He upheld the pltfs', right to redeem and dismissed the appeal R. A. No. 153/-48-49 preferred by deft. 7. Deft. 7 has preferred two appeals to this Court.

( 3 ) THE first is against the concurrent decisions in R. A. No. 153/48-49. He has in that appeal paid a court-fee of Rs. 80 under Section 4 (ix) as in the suit and the same has been accepted as correct. He has filed this second appeal in respect of the decision in R. A. no. 151/48-49 and has paid on the appeal memo, a court-fee of a similar sum of Rs. 80 as payable under the same section of the mysore Court-fees Act. The office called upon him to pay court-fee ad valorem on the difference between the amount awarded in his favour by the Munsiff and that awarded by the Subordinate judge. The appellant questions the correctness of that demand and has brought up the matter before us.

( 4 ) MR. V. Krishnamurthi, the learned Advocate for the appellant, contends that though Section 4 [ix] purports to apply to suits the principle in it is also applicable to appeals in those suits; that the court-fee he has paid in this second appeal is really more than what was really payable by him and that he need not have paid any court-fee at all in this second appeal in respect of the amounts claimed by him as he had already paid court-fees under s. 4 [ix] in the other second appeal where the question of the right to redeem was raised; that his client was forced to file two second appeals as there were two decrees passed by the Subordinate Judge and that his client cannot be compelled to pay court-fees in both the appeals merely on that account. There have been quite a large number of decided cases on this subject and they are not uniform and it is not quite easy to reconcile all of them, or to deduce any common general principle. But in pachayakkal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document