VISHWANATH REVANSIDDAPPA LINGSHETTI Vs. SHIVSHANKAR BASAPPA NINGSHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three appeals the parties coming in appeal are claiming certain amounts of interest in the settlement of partnership accounts. The interest is either claimed on debit entries made in the personal accounts of the partners or on capital contribution in excess of the capital contribution of the other partners. The claim in First Appeal No. 422 of 1962 amounts to Rs. 15,425, in First Appeal No. 486 of 1962 it amounts to Rs. 14,278 and in First Appeal No. 526 of 1962 it amounts to Rs. 14,572. Mr. Pendse, appearing for defendant No. 11, who is a respondent in these appeals, has objected to the notes as to Court -fees made on the memoranda of appeal by the respective advocates for the appellants and to the valuation made in respect of the Court -fees.

(2.) IN substance the notes put by the advocates in these three appeals state that the claims in appeal were not capable of valuation as they were regarding the interest which was not charged against defendant No. 11 and hence Court -fee of Rs. 30 was paid. It appears that the office of the Taxing Master has accepted such notes and has proceeded to charge a fixed Court -fee of Rs. 30 in each of these appeals.

(3.) MR . Albal, appearing for the appellants in Appeal No. 486 of 1962, gave us the analogy of future mesne profits and contended that on a claim for future mesne profits no ad valorem Court -fee was payable. Section 13 provides that in a suit for recovery of possession of immoveable property and mesne profit or for mesne profits or for an account or the amount being ascertained the Court -fee has to be paid on the difference between the amount on which it is paid and the amount which is found due. In an appeal this question would not arise. By the time an appeal is filed the mesne profits have already been ascertained and the amount of the subject -matter in dispute has been ascertained and an ad valorem Court -fee under Section 13 would have to be paid. There is, therefore, no substance in this argument of Mr. Albal.