The value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance is the amount of the arrears for which the patnis were sold, and not the value of the patnis.

CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J. :- These are three applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from a common judgment and three decrees passed by this Court, affirming thereby a common judgment and three decrees passed by a learned Subordinate Judge in three suits brought for setting aside the sales of three patnis. The Courts have concurrently decreed the suits and defendant No. 2, the zamindar at whose instance the patni sales were held, wants our leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. The plaintiffs in the suits were the holders of the patnis sold. It was not disputed that the arrears for which the patnis had been brought, to sale were in fact due, but the plaintiffs case was that the sales had been irregular in that requisite notices had not been properly exhibited at the zamindars kutchery and notices required to be served on the properties themselves had not been served at all. The defendants impleaded in the suits were the Berhampore Bank Limited which was defendant No. 1, the purchaser, and the zamindar, Maharaja Prodyot Kumar Tagore, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The common defence of the defendants was that the sales had been properly held, but the bank took a special plea that if the sales were set aside, it should be awarded indemnity under S. 14, para. 3 of the Patni Regulation for the loss sustained.

3. The trial court passed decrees, setting aside the sales and awarded the bank by way of an indemnity the amounts paid by it as purchase money and subsequent patni rents paid "with interest at six per cent, per annum from the date of such payment or deposit." In the decrees drawn up, interest was calculated up to the date of the decrees and the amounts awarded were Rs. 19,899/6/9 in the first suit (No. 8), Rs. 8198/1/3 in the second suit (No. 9) and Rs. 4590/1/3 in the third suit (No. 10).

4. Defendant No. 2, the zamindar, appealed to this Court. The suits had been valued in the trial Court at Rs. 5300/-, Rs. 3400/- and Rs. 2100/- respectively. Defendant No. 2 adopted the same valuations and, by his grounds of appeal, objected only to the findings as to the invalidity of the sales. No ground was taken against the indemnity awarded to defendant No. 1, either as to the awards themselves or as to their quantum. The amounts of the money decrees were not included in the valuation of the appeals, nor was any court-fee paid thereon. 5. Although no objection to the amounts of indemnity had been taken by the grounds of appeal, it was urged at the hearing that in computing the loss caused to the purchaser-bank, account should have been taken of the collections which the bank might have made from the tenants. This Court repelled that objection mainly on the ground that the question of collections was a question between the purchaser and the patnidars who only would be entitled to the rents paid by the tenants if the sales were bad and that the zamindar could not claim any debit on account of the collections, if indeed any collections had been made. On the main question of the validity of the sales, the Court held, in agreement with the trial Court and on the same grounds, that they were bad. As to the indemnity, the Court expressed its findings in the following words :

"The purchaser qua purchaser is to be compensated and is compensated for less which will include the purchase money paid by him as also the rents paid by him and he is to get interest on the same. The interest will be calculated upto the dates of payment of the respective amounts from the dates of their deposit".

In the result, the appeals were dismissed with costs.

6. The present applications for leave to appeal are, as I have said, by defendant No. 2, the zamindar. He has prayed for the consolidation of the three appeals for the purposes of valuation. His contention is that the appeals satisfy the valuation test and the judgment of this Court is not a judgment of affirmance and, therefore, he is entitled to leave to appeal as of right. Alte