JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal under Section 6A, U.P. Court-fees Act. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs on the grounds that a mortgage decree against them, on the basis of which the property in suit had been sold to the mortgagee by the Sale Officer, had been obtained while they were minors, that they were not properly represented in the suit and therefore the decree was not binding upon them, they could therefore avoid the decree and the sale made by the Sale Officer. They also prayed that they might be given possession of the property after cancellation of the decree and sale. Upon this they paid a court-fee on the property valued at six times the Government revenue of the property in suit. Admittedly this was insufficient as in any case a suit for possession must be valued at 10 times the Government revenue of the property in suit. The Munsarim and the Inspector of Stamps reported that the case came under Section 7 (iv-A), Sub-section (1), Court-fees Act, and that court-fee was payable on the price of the property in the sale deed, namely Rs. 6245-4-0 and also on the prayer for possession. "When the case came up before the lower Court it was contended by defendants' counsel that the plaintiffs should be made to pay court-fee on all the three reliefs claimed, namely cancellation of the decree, cancellation of the sale deed and possession. The learned lower Court, however, held that the court-fee was payable under Section 7 (iv-A) on cancellation of the decree, and for the relief of possession separate court-fee must be paid on ten times the Government revenue. We think that this decision is correct. Section 7 (iv-A) runs:

(iv-A) In suits for or involving cancellation of or adjudging void or voidable a decree for money or other property having a market-value, or an instrument securing money or other property having such value, (1) where the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title was a party to the decree or instrument, according to the value of the subject-matter, and (2) where he or his predecessor-in-title was not a party to the decree or instrument, according to one-fifth of the value of the subject-matter, and such value shall be deemed to be if the whole decree or instrument is involved in the suit, the amount for which or value of the property in respect of which the decree was passed or the instrument executed, and if only a part of the decree or instrument is involved in the suit, the amount or value of the property to which such part relates.

Explanation.--The value of the property,' for the purposes of this Sub-section, shall be the market-value, which in the case of immovable propertyshall be deemed to be the value as computed in accordance with Sub-section (v), (v-A) or (v-B) as the case may be.

2. The appellants' learned Counsel argues that the words "a decree for money or other property having a market-value" correspond to the words "the amount for which or value of the property in respect of which the decree was passed" and "a decree for money" correspond to "the amount for which" and "a decree for other property having a market-value" correspond to "the value of the property in respect of which the decree was passed." Thus, he argues, the amount of the decree can only be taken into consideration in assessing court-fee where the decree is a simple money decree. Since this is a mortgage decree, and not a simple money decree, we shall have to look to the value of the property in respect of which the decree was passed and not to the amount of the decree. We do not think however that the words quoted above are to be taken in parallel pairs as contended by appellants' learned Counsel, nor do we think the words "a decree for money" as used in this section necessarily mean "a simple, money decree." In the mortgage suit under consideration money was decreed to the plaintiff although the suit was not a simple money suit. Since the amount of the decree is immediately apparent, we consider that the amount of the decree