Viswanatha Sastri, J.-The plaintiff in the Court below, here petitioner, seeks a revision of the order of the District Munsiff of Badagara requiring her to pay court-fee in a suit for recovery of possession of land held under a kanom demise together with arrears of rent, not only on the principal amount of the kanom but also on the arrears of rent claimed by her. The kanom amount was Rs. 60 while the arrears of rent sought to be recovered and on which additional court-fee was directed to be paid was Rs. 1,145-7-0. The plaintiff prayed that the amount due to her for arrears of rent should be set off against the amount of the kanom and the value of the improvements due to the defendants and that the latter should be directed to restore possession of the demised land and pay whatever might be found due to her on accounts being taken. There has been a difference of opinion in this Court as regards the proper method of valuing suits of this kind for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction. The divergence of views is due to the anomalous character of a kanom which is neither wholly a mortgage nor wholly a lease. The incidents of a kanom tenure originally recognised by custom and judicial decisions have been incorporated in subsequent legislation to which regard must be had in reaching a conclusion.

Under section 17 of the Court-Fees Act if a suit “embraces two or more distinct subjects” the plaint is chargeable with the aggregate amount of court-fees to which plaints in suits embracing each of such subjects separately would be chargeable under the Act. In a suit “for recovery of mortgaged property”, that is to say, in a suit for redemption, court-fee is payable “on the principle expressly secured by the instrument of mortgage”, under section 7 (ix) of the Act. The petitioner argues that the present suit is one for redemption chargeable under section 7 (ix), while the Government Pleader maintains that court-fee is payable both on the claim for redemption and on the claim for arrears of rent under section 17 of the Act. A mortgagee in possession is required by section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act to manage the property prudently, collect the rents, pay Government revenue, abstain from committing waste, effect necessary repairs to the property and keep clear and full accounts of receipts and disbursements. Some of these obligations may be qualified or their performance dispensed with by a contract between the parties. The last paragraph of section 76 runs as follows:-

“If the mortgagee fails to perform any of the duties imposed upon him by this section, he may, when accounts are taken in pursuance of a decree made under this chapter, be debited with the loss, if any, occasioned by such failure”.

A decree for redemption is contemplated by section 60 occurring in Chapter IV of the Transfer of Property Act. Under Order 34, rule 7, Civil Procedure Code. the preliminary decree in a suit for redemption of a mortgage directs an account to be taken of the amount due to the mortgagee, presumably having regard to the stipulations in the mortgage deed and the obligations imposed by section 76 of the Transfer of Property Act on a mortgagee in possession. The right of the mortgagor to require an account from the mortgagee in possession is incidental to his right of redemption. A suit for redemption involves a taking of the account between the mortgagor and the mortgagee in order to ascertain the sum due from the one to the other on payment of which sum alone a mortgagor is entitled to recover possession of the property. If, on taking the account, the mortgagee is found to have been over-paid, the Court is required by Order 34, rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, to pass a decree directing him to pay the surplus to the mortgagor in addition to restoring possession of the property to him. A claim by the mortgagor for surplus profits, that is, profits realised by the mortgagee in excess of what was due to him, is incidental to the main relief of redempti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document