JUDGMENT

Bennett, J - This is an appeal under Section 6A, Court-fees Act, against an order passed by the learned District Judge of Hardoi on 14th November 1941, to the effect that ad valorem court-lees were payable on the present appellant's memorandum of appeal in his Court. The appellant was a mortgagee and an application for redemption of this mortgage was made under Section 12, Agriculturists' Belief Act. It was held by the Munsif that the mortgagor was entitled to redeem without making any payment, on the contrary he was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 519 odd from the mortgagee on account of excess profits. The mortgagee's appeal against this order was transferred in the first instance by the District Judge to the Additional Civil Judge, A court-fee of Be, 0-12-0 had been paid on the appeal, and the Munsarim reported that this was insufficient. The Additional Civil Judge heard the appellant's counsel and decided on 30th May 1941, I that the court-fee was sufficient. Subsequently, the District Judge withdrew the appeal to his own file for hearing. On 27th October 1941, the Inspector of Stamps reported that ad valorem court-fee should have been charged and that there was therefore a deficiency of Rs. 371-12-0. This report appears to have been received by the District Judge on 31st October, and was put up at the hearing of the appeal before him on 14th November.

2. On the latter date, a preliminary objection was preferred by the respondent that the court-fee paid was insufficient. This preliminary objection was upheld by the District Judge in the order of the same date which is now the subject of the present appeal. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that it was not open to the appellate Court to reopen the question of court-fee once that question had been decided by the Additional Civil Judge in his favour upon the Munsarim's report. Sub-section (1) of Section 12, Court-fees Act, is particularly relied upon as showing that the decision on the question of valuation for the purpose of deter mining the amount of fee chargeable on a memorandum of appeal shall be final as between the parties to the suit. It is argued that the question can only be reopened by a higher Court of appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 12. Learned Counsel for the appellant also referred to certain rulings of the Madras High Court, namely, Lakshmana Ayyar v. Palaniappa Chettiar, A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 927 and Sadasivam Pillai v. Varadaraj a Odayar, A.I.R. 1937 Mad. 325. Both these cases are cited for the proposition that the decision of a Court under Section 12, Court-fees Act, relating to the valuation of the suit for purposes of court-fee is final as between parties to the suit, subject however to the qualification that a higher court-fee may be levied by a Court of appeal, reference or revision, if in its opinion the question was wrongly decided by the lower Court "to the detriment of revenue." For the Crown and the respondent it is contended that these rulings have no bearing on this case in view f of the provisions of the Court, fees Act as amended in its application to the United Provinces. Reliance is placed in particular upon the provisions of Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 6 of that Act. These Sub-sections read as follows:

(3) If a question of deficiency in court-fee in respect of any plaint or memorandum of appeal is raised by an officer mentioned in Section 24A the Court shall, before proceeding further with the suit or appeal, record a finding whether the court-fee paid is sufficient or not. If the Court finds that the court-fee paid is insufficient it shall call upon the plaintiff or the appellant, as the case may be, to make good the deficiency within such time as it may fix, and in case; of default shall reject the plaint or memorandum of appeal.

(4) Whenever a question of the proper amount g of court-fee payable is raised otherwise than under Sub-section (3) the Court shall decide such question before proce