JUDGMENT

1. The plea of the appellant in the Court below was that he did not sign the muchilika for Fasli 1318, on which the suit is brought. It is found by the District Judge that the defendant executed a muchilika in Fasli 1317 at the rate claimed in the plaint and that in the subsequent fasli a similar muchilika was executed by him. The defendant did not raise the question of want of consideration for the contract he entered into in Fasli 1318. It is therefore, unnecessary to decide in these appeals whether there was valid consideration for the muchilika or not. We must dismiss these second appeals with costs.

Judgment in the Memoranda of Objections.

2. The lower Appellate Court is wrong in fixing the Vakil's fee in each of the appeals at one rupee. Rule 33, Clause (c), of the Rules of the High Court, Appellate Side, fixes the minimum Vakil's fee in each appeal at Rs. 20. Consequently the lower Appellate Court had no power, if it gave costs in each case, to reduce that fee. The proper course to be followed in cases where a number of appeals are heard together involving the same point of law and not requiring separate argument is pointed out by the Court of Appeal in Grieb's case, I