VENKAATACHALAM Vs. APPARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE cases are posted before me for determination of the question as to the amount of,court-rfee to be paid on the two appeals. The suits out of which these appeals arise are for recovery of money, and were dismissed and the res- puctive plaintiffs preferred the appeals for the sums due to them. The suits were properly valued as on the date of the plaint and the pro- per court-fee was paid thereon. The memorandum of appeals were valued by adding interest at the rate claimed till the date of the decree of the lower court to the principal amount claimed in the plaint. This they did and court fee was paid thereoa as prescribed by the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valu- ation Act,- 1956. The appellants included the interest that accrued due pending the suit and upto the date of the decree in view of Explanation III to Section 49 of the Act. But the office is not satisfied with this. The office required the appellants to calculate the interest on the amounts claimed till the dates of the filing of the appeals and to pay the court-fee also on the amount of interest that would accrue till the dates of tht filing of the appeal. Since the appellants would not agree to pay that additional court-fee, these matters are posted before me for orders. Section 49 of the Act prescribes that the fee payable in an appeal shall be the same as the fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject-matter of the first appeal. If the matter rests there, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in 'State of Maharashra v. Mishrilal neither a plaintiff whose suit may be dismissed nor a defendant against whom a decree for money is passed has to pay the court fee on the interest which would accrue pendsnts lite till the-date of the decree or till the date of the filing of the appeal. But so far as this suit is concerned, there is Explanation III to Section 49 which provides that in claims which include the award of interest subsequent to the institution of the suit, the interest accrued during the pendency of the suit till the date of decree shall be deemed to be part of the subject-matter of the appeal except where such intereit ii relinquished. By this Explanation, interest pendmts lite till the date of the decree is made the subject-matter of the appeal for the purpose of valuing the appeal and paying the court-fee. Otherwise, the decision of the Supreme Court would have governed this case. The appeals in both cases have satisfied the requirements of Explanation III. But the office relying upoa the observation of Seshachalapati, J. in S.Rs Nos. 906 and 907 or 1960, required the appellants to calculate interest from ; the dates of the decrees of the lower Court till the dates of the filing of the appeals. No doubt there is some reference to such interest in the judgment of the learned Judge. But the real queltion that was decided by him was whether the decree in Explanation III refers only to the decree of the trial Court or whether it includes also the decree of the appellats Court for the purpose of valuing a Second Appeal. I do not understand the learned Judge as laying down that for the purpose of appeal interest has to be calculated also from the date of the decree till the date of the filing of the appeal and court-fee has to be paid thereon, because such a view would not be in accordance with Explanation III to section 49. I hold that the appellant need not include the interest that accrued subsequent to the date of the decrees till the date of the filing of the appeals and pay court-fee thereon. It is stated that in these two cases proper court-fee has been'paid as required by the Explanation III. The appeals will be taken on file and will be numbered. The Court- fee already paid in the two appeals is sufficient.