Srinivasa Ayyangar, J.

1. In this second appeal the defendants, against whom a decree for ejectment has been made have appealed to this Court against the refusal of the lower appellate Court to grant to them the value of certain improvements consisting in the construction of a pucca building on the site in-question.

2. A preliminary objection to the appeal has been taken on behalf of the respondents on the ground that the proper Court-fee has not been paid in respect of the appeal. The appellants have paid the same Court-fee in the second appeal as was paid in respect of the plaint by the plaintiff-respondent. The contention has been advanced that though in a suit for possession the Court-fee payable on a plaint may be as prescribed in a. particular manner by the Court-fees Act, still when the appeal is by the defendant, and when the claim by the defendant on appeal has reference to the compensation claimed by him but refused to be granted,, the valuation of the appeal should logically be the value the defendants seek to recover from the plaintiff and that therefore the proper Court-fee should be paid thereon.

3. In the trial Court before the District Munsif the decree in favo