Court-fees cannot be levied without express statutory provisions even in cases with deposits for future mesne profits.

1. These C.R.Ps. raise a somewhat ticklish question whether the Court - fee is payable on amounts deposited towards future mesne profits and drawn out by the plaintiff under orders of Court, relating to which a decree for future profits has not been passed.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to this question are these: The suits O.S. 219 of 1946 and 354 of 1946 were filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Tanuku, for ejectment of the tenant; after due determination of their tenancy and for recovery of past rents and future profits. The suits were decreed for possession and for rents already accrued due and an enquiry was directed in respect of future mesne profits under O.20 R.12 CPC.

3. The defendants carried the matter in appeal and in further second appeal. It would also appear that the appeals to the Supreme Court were filed by special leave.

4. During the pendency of the second appeals in the High Court of Madras, the defendants - tenants obtained orders of stay of delivery of possession subject to the condition that they deposited certain amounts towards future profits. The plaintiffs were given, liberty to draw those amounts deposited without furnishing security. It would appear that the amounts were deposited - it would not be necessary to set out the actual amounts - and were drawn out by the plaintiffs without any objection. It would appear in the Supreme Court also they obtained similar orders during the pendency of the appeals. Pursuant thereto, the amounts were deposited and withdrawn by the plaintiffs without any objection.

5. While so, it would appear that during an annual inspection of the Court of the District Munsif, Tanuku by the District Judge on 09/12/1957, the District Judge had occasion to go through some of the records and that on noticing the withdrawal of the amounts deposited by the defendants, he issued administrative instructions that Court - fee should be collected on the amounts withdrawn by the plaintiffs towards mesne profits. The District Munsif passed on these directions of the learned District Judge for compliance to the parties whereupon they would appear to have filed petitions I.A. No.106 of 1958 in O.S. No.219 of 1946 and I.A. No.107 of 1958 in O.S. No.354 of 1946 under S.151 CPC for the issue of directions that no Court - fee need be collected in respect of the amounts drawn under the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court during the pendency of the second appeals and the appeals by special leave.

6. The learned Munsif passed rather a cryptic order on these petitions. It is sufficient to extract the order in I.A. No.106 of 1958:
"As the payment of Court - fees in these matters is incidental to the payment of amounts as per the orders of the Supreme Court, the petitioner is directed to get the position clarified by the Supreme Court. Petition closed".
Similar order was passed in I.A. No.107 of 1958. It is against these orders that the present revisions are preferred by plaintiffs.

7. In support of these revisions, Sri Krishna - murthy has argued that Court - fee is not payable unless expressly provided under the Court - tees Act and that directions for the payment of Court - fee as such are unwarranted. He submits that as yet there is no decree with regard to the future mesne profits and that an enquiry under O.20 R.12 CPC would be consequential on the disposal of the appeals by the Supreme Court of India which are pending. He submits that the Court fee questions with regard to these matters have to be decided with reference to the Court - fees Act, 1870 (Act VII of 1870) as