MUNDARGI MAHADEVAPPA SONS Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above case has been posted before us for determining the sufficiency or otherwise of the Court fee paid by the appellants on the memorandum of appeal. The appellants are defendants Nos.1 and 2 in the Court below. Respondent 1 (plaintiff) instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,52,686-91 ps. along with further interest and costs on the foot of a mortgage against the appellants and respondent 2 (defendant 3) . The appellants filed a written statement requesting the Court to dismiss the suit at the first instance. Thereafter, they filed a memo before the Court below stating that a decree for payment of the amount claimed by the plaintiff may be passed and the defendants may be given ten annual instalments to discharge the decretal amount. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded to pass a decree. While doing so, it declined to permit the defendants to pay the decretal amount in instalments. Aggrieved by the decree of the Court below in so far as it declined to permit the defendants to pay the decretal amount in instalments, the appellants have filed this appeal.

(2.) On the memorandum of appeal, the appellants have paid a sum of Rs. 10 as Court fee on the basis that the valuation of the appeal is governed by Art.3(iii) (1) (a) of Sch.II of the Mysore Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, which prescribes a Court fee of Rs.10 as the Court fee pavable on the memorandum of appeal filed before the High Court if the order relates to a suit or proceeding the value of which exceeds Rs.1,000 and if there is no other provision governing it.

(3.) The office having raised objection regarding the valuation given by the appellants in the memorandum of appeal, the above case has been placed before us for decision.