Section 21 of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 applies to a suit for interest on compensation for land acquisition and not Section 45.

B. P. BERI, C.J. :- This is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, by which the suit of the appellants claiming interest in the sum of Rs. 76,500/- was dismissed.

2. The office has raised an objection that fixed court-fee in the sum of Rs. 300/- is inadequate, and ad valorem court-fee should have been paid on the amount claimed. We issued a notice to the learned Government Advocate and the Deputy Government Advocate appears in answer to it.

3. Some facts of this dispute might be recaptulated to appraise the scope of the controversy. The State of Rajasthan acquired in the year 1949-50 a parcel of land situate in Bhojpura near Gandhi Nagar area in Jaipur. Its compensation in the sum of Rs. 80,000/- was determined by the Revenue Department on 14-8-1951 and it was in point of fact also sanctioned on that date but the amount was paid to Shri Praduman Ojha

father of the plaintiffs by the State on 7-1-1965. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed, using the plaintiffs' own expression, "interest by way of damages" for a period of three years and five months at the rate of 6% per annum amounting to Rupees 64,000/-. They have further claimed interest by way of damages from 7-1-1965 till the filing of the suit amounting to Rs. 12,100/-. making a tidy total of Rupees 76,500/-. The plaintiff paid ad valorem court-fee in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City. The State contested the suit. The learned Judge dismissed the suit on grounds with which we are not concerned at present. The plaintiffs have now come up in appeal.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Section 46 of the Rajasthan Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") is inapplicable inasmuch as the fee payable under that section is on the difference of the amount awarded and the amount paid by way of compensation under Land Acquisition Act whereas, his suit rests on the foundation of Section 34 of the Jaipur Land Acquisition Act, 1943. He, therefore, submits that it is Section 45 which applies and he has Paid the correct court-fee in the sum of Rs. 300/- as provided by Section 45 (v) of the Act.

5. The contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate is that this suit of the appellant is covered by Section 21 of the Act.

6. The controversy, therefore, shrinks into the question whether the present appeal is covered by Section 21 or Section 45 of the Act ?

7. Section 21 of the Act reads as follows-

"21. Suits for money :- In a suit for money (including a suit for damages or compensation or arrears of maintenance, of annuities, or of other sums payable periodically), fee shall be computed on the amount claimed."

8. Section 45 of the Act reads :-

"45, Suits not otherwise provided for :- In suits not otherwise provided for, fee shall be payable at the following rates, namely :-

Where the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute-

(i) ............

(ii) ............

(iii) ............

(iv) ............

(v) exceeds Rs. 10,000/- Rupees three hundred."

We might notice Section 47 as well in this context which lays down that "the fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject-matter of the appeal." It will be, therefore, profitable to examine whether Section 21 of the Act applies or not, because if it does not, then alone Section 45 would be attracted, as its plain reading shows that it is the residuary section which comes into operation only when no other section in the Act covers a particular claim. The language of Section 21 of the Act shorn of its parenthetical clause reads :-

"In a suit for money, fee shall be computed in the amount claimed."

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks inspiration from the parenthetical clause which reads "including a suit for damages or compensation, or arrears of maintenance." In Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh. AIR