PUVADI CHAYANNA Vs. NANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question before us at present in this second appeal is as to the amount of court-fee payable on the memo of appeal. The pltfs. filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage with possession evidenced by a deed of mortgage for Rs. 800. They claimed to do so as purchasers of the mortgaged properties from defts. 1 to 6. Deft. 7, who is the appellant before us, pleaded that the pltfs. were not entitled so to redeem as the sale in their favour was nominal & collusive & was not meant to convey any title at all & that he himself had subsequently purchased the properties from defts. 1 to 6 in pursuance of a prior agreement of sale of which the pltfs. had notice. He also pleaded that he had spent monies for re-building & improving the first item mortgaged which is a house, as it had fallen down, that he had also paid some taxes & that in any event he was entitled to receive these sums aggregating Rs. 3,506-8-0 before the pltfs. could redeem him. The pltfs. paid a court-fee of Rs. 80 on the plaint under Section 4 (ix), Mysore Court fees Act, which runs in the same terms as the corresponding Section 7(ix). Indian Court-fees Act, as follows:

(2.) The learned Munsiff passed a decree holding that the pltfs. were entitled to redeem deft. 7 but that they were bound to pay Rs. 2,960 to him including the mortgage money as being the value of the improvements made & taxes paid by him. Against that decision the pltfs. preferred an appeal in R. A. No. 151/48-49 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Kolar complaining that the amount decreed as payable to deft. 7 was much too high. Deft. 7 also preferred an appeal in R. A. No. 153/48-49 against the portion of the decree declaring that the pltfs. were entitled to redeem. The Subordinate Judge allowed the pltfs' appeal R. A. No. 151/48-49 in part. He held that deft. 7 had failed to prove that he had effected improvements & therefore, reduced the sum payable to him to Rs. 949-12-0 including the mortgage amount. He upheld the pltfs', right to redeem & dismissed the appeal R. A. No. 153/-48-49 preferred by deft. 7. Deft. 7 has preferred two appeals to this Court.

(3.) The first is against the concurrent decisions in R. A. No. 153/48-49. He has in that appeal paid a court-fee of Rs. 80 under Section 4 (ix) as in the suit & the same has been accepted as correct. He has filed this second appeal in respect of the decision in R. A. no. 151/48-49 & has paid on the appeal memo, a court-fee of a similar sum of Rs. 80 as payable under the same section of the Mysore Court-fees Act. The office called upon him to pay court-fee ad valorem on the difference between the amount awarded in his favour by the Munsiff & that awarded by the Subordinate Judge. The appellant questions the correctness of that demand & has brought up the matter before us.