The main legal point established in the judgment is that the calculation of court fees in appeals under the Court Fees Act should be based on the value of the subject-matter in dispute in the appeal.

Arnold White, C.J.

1. The plaintiffs sued for redemption. They valued their suit at Rs. 231-11-7, the amount they Stated to be still due on the bond, but Court-fees amounting to Rs. 510 were levied from them with reference to Section 7, Clause IX, of the Court Fees Act, which makes fees leviable in suits against a mortgagee for the recovery of the property mortgaged, upon the principal money expressed to be secured by the mortgage in this case Rs. 13,500.

2. The plaintiffs got a decree for redemption upon payment of Rs. 831-11-7.

3. The defendants appealed and the original decree was modified by directing that the plaintiffs should pay Rs. 1,162-6-5 in addition to the amount fixed by the lower Court, Court-fees were only paid on Rs. 1,162-6-5.

4. The plaintiffs and the defendant now prefer separate second appeals. The plaintiffs (mortgagors) valuing their second appeal at Rs. 1,162-6-5, while the defendant (mortgagee) values his second appeal at Rs. 10,000.

5. The mortgagee says he is not liable to pay Court-fees on Rs. 13,500, the amount of the principal money secured by the mortgage, but only on the difference between the amount claimed by him, and the amount which, under the decree of the lower Appellate Court, he has been hold to be entitled to receive.

6. The mortgagor says he is not liable to pay Court-fee on Rs. 13,500, but only on Rs. 1,162, the amount which under the decree of the lower Appellate Court, he has been held liable to pay in addition to the Rs. 231-11-7 which, under the decree of the Court of First Instance, he was held liable to pay.

7. I will take the case of the mortgagor appellant first. The question is - is the fee payable by him governed by Section 7(e), IX of the Court Fees Act, or is it governed by Article 1 of the first schedule to the Act? If, by the former, the fee is to be computed with reference to Rs. 13,500, the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage. If, by the latter, the further question arises, do the words "subject-matter in dispute" in the second column of Article 1 of the 1st schedule mean subject-matter originally in dispute in the suit, or subject-matter in dispute in the appeal. I am of opinion that Article 1 of the 1st schedule applies and that the words "subject-matter in dispute" mean subject matter in dispute in the appeal I think it is clear that Article 1 applies unless it can be said that the matter is otherwise provided for in the Act. Now turning to Section 7, I find that in cases falling within Sub-section (e), IV, there is a special provision that the method of computation for the purpose of a memorandum of appeal shall be "otherwise," that is to say, it is to be according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the memorandum of appeal. There is no similar special provision with regard to cases falling within Section 7(e), IX. It seems to me that the word "suits" in this sub-section cannot be construed as including appeals and that appeals (unless otherwise provided for) are governed by Article 1. The more natural construction of the words "subject matter in dispute" seems to me to read them, when a memorandum of appeal is concerned, as applying to the matter in dispute in the appeal. Section 16 seems to show that the general policy of the legislature was to make the value of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal the criterion for the purpose of computing the fee.

8. In the case in "Reference under Court Pees Act" (1) the question for decision was - "In a suit to redeem a mortgage and to recover arrears of rent due by the mortgagee to the mortgagor on account of the mortgaged property should the Court-fee to be levied be calculated according to the sum of the principal amount of the mortgage and arrears of rent, or according to the difference of those two items?" It seems to me that that decision does not cover the point raised in the present cases. The precise point was considered by the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Co