( 1 ) THIS case involves the interpretation of Section 7 Clause (ii) (a ). Court-Fees Act. as in force in this State. The relevant facts are these :

( 2 ) THE respondent, a Hindu widow, filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of maintenance, and for an order for future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 40 per month to be secured by a charge on certain property in the hands of the appellants. The appellants are the respondents deceased husbands brother and two minor sons of the latter. The trial Court granted the respondent a decree for future maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20 a month and directed that the payment of such maintenance be made a charge on the appellants property. Against this order the respondent filed an appeal and the appellants a cross objection, both of which were dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The appellants have now filed a second appeal in this court, and the question has arisen as to the sufficiency of the court-fee paid by the appellants on their second appeal and on the cross objection which they filed in the lower Court. It is only with the latter that we are now concerned.

( 3 ) THE appellants paid a court-fee of Rs. 24 on their cross objection; the Taxing Officer is of opinion that the value of the subject-matter of the cross objection was Rs. 2,400 upon which a court-fee of Rs. 275-8-0 is payable, to which must be added Rs. 18/12/- as the court-fee on that part of the cross objection which seeks to have set aside the order directing that payment of future maintenance be charged on the appellants property. To the payment of this latter sum no objection is taken

( 4 ) NOW Section 7, Clause (ii) (a), of the Court-Fees Act reads thus :

"7. The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows; (ii) (a) In suits for maintenance and annuities or other sums payable periodically--According to the value of the subject-matter of the suit such value shall be deemed to be ten times the amount claimed to be payable for one year ; provided that in suits for personal maintenance by females and minors, such value shall be deemed to be the amount claimed to be payable for one year. "

and Section 2 of the Act provides that unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context appeal includes a cross objection and " suit includes a first or second appeal from a decree in a suit and also a Letters Patent Appeal. " reading these two provisions together, the proviso, ia the case of a first appeal, accordingly reads thus : "provided that in first appeals from decrees in suits for personal maintenance by females and minors, such value shall be deemed to be the amount claimed to be payable for one year". The question is whether this proviso applies only when the appeal is filed by females or minors or whether, as the appellants contend, it is immaterial by whom the appeal is filed provided it is from a decree in a suit for personal maintenance which was instituted by a female or a minor. The matter has been considered by this Court on three occasions In Chief Inspector of Stamps v. Brij Raj Singh, 1949 All LJ 483: (AIR 1950 All 55) (A ). Seth. J. , took the view for which the appellants now contend, but that case was subsequently overruled in Shankar Ojha v. Mst. Jotia, air 1952 All 605 (B ). The correctness of that decision is now challenged. The third case is chief Inspector of Stamps v. Ram Avadh Chowdhury, AIR 1953 All 175 (C), a case not cited in argument but to which my attention has been drawn by my brother Srivastava. In that case I took a view similar to that which subsequently found favour in Shankar Ojhas case (B ).

( 5 ) I may observe at once that in my opinion neither Rs. 240, the amount open which the appellants contend the court-fee should be determined, nor Rs. 2,400, the amount upon which the taxing Officer calculated the fee, is correct. Under Clause (ii) (a) of Section 7 the court-fee is payable on the value of the subject-ma