JUDGMENT

Pramada Charan Banerji and Gokul Prasad, JJ. - An office report has been put up before us in which it is stated that the amount of court fee paid on the plaint was insufficient and that a further sum of Rs. 385 was payable on the plaint. Dr. Agarwala disputes the correctness of the office report and we have therefore to decide whether the amount of court fee payable on the plaint was or was not sufficient. The suit was one for redemption of a mortgage made in 1863. The principal amount secured by the mortgage was Rs. 960. It provided that the, mortgagee was to remain in possession, appropriate the usufruct, deduct out of it the amount of interest payable on the mortgage which was at the rate of fifteen, annas per cent, per mensem, and appropriate the balance towards the principal. The mortgagors remained in possession of a part of the property upon an undertaking to pay rent for that part. In the present suit the plaintiffs sought to redeem the mortgage on the allegation that the full amount of the mortgage including interest had been discharged by the usufruct and that a surplus of Rs. 7,533-12-9 was due to the plaintiffs by the mortgagee. The plaintiffs accordingly claime