JANGUMIYA SULEMAN MADIWALE Vs. HASHAMSAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision against an order passed by the District Judge at Belgaum directing the plaintiff-applicants to pay ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 9,000. The fee that was ordered to be paid by the Court was not paid, and the appeal was, thereupon, rejected for non-payment of court-fees.

(2.) IN this case the plaintiffs filed a suit to redeem, along with defendants Nos. 9 and 10, as heirs and legal representatives of the original mortgagor, a mortgage for Rs. 1,000 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 8 effected on January 1, 1896. The mortgage was a usufructuary one. The plaintiff filed the suit for taking accounts of the mortgage and for redemption.

(3.) IT has been contended by Mr. Datar, the learned advocate for the applicants, that the view of the learned District Judge is not correct and that the court-fee to be paid on the memorandum of appeal must be decided by reference to Section 7, Clause (ix), of the Court-fees Act, and not with reference to Article 1 of Schedule I of the Act. His contention is that even in appeal the subject-matter of the dispute is the right to redeem on payment of a certain sum of money, and that, therefore, the matter should be governed not by Article 1 of Schedule I but by Clause (ix) of Section 7 of the Court-fees Act. In support of this contention, he has relied on a decision of this Court in Umarkhan v. Mahomedkhan (1885) I. L. R. 10 Bom. 41, and the judgment in Gopal v. Gangaram (1891) P. J. 218.