HIRALAL AND ANOTHER Vs. AGARCHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Rege for the respondent raises a preliminary objection that the court -fee paid along with the momorandum of appeal is inadequate. He contends that reading Section 8 of the Madhya Bharat Court -Fees Act along with the provisions of Article 1, Schedule I of that Act it is clear that the appellants ought to have paid court -fee on the entire amount of compensation which they seek to claim in this appeal.

(2.) ON the other hand Mr. Saxena for the appellants contends that inasmuch as part of the amount of compensation is lying deposited in the bank having been deposited therein under the orders of the Court under Section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act and part is yet to be recovered from the Government it is enough for him to obtain declaration as to his right to the same as against the respondent particularly as the Government from whom the amount is to be obtained is not interested in this appeal and that for that reason payment of fixed court -fee of Rs. 15 is enough. He relied upon the decision reported in A. I. R. 1932 Mad 438 Thammayya Vs. Venkataramanamma in support of his contention.

(3.) THE facts of the case necessary for consideration of the preliminary objection are that Zamindar Uttamsingh owned certain lands in Kasba Ujjain. Out of the same Mangalji the father of appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 and husband of appellant No. 4 had obtained the disputed piece on rent from Uttamsingh After the lands had been acquired by the Government each of the parties set up a claim for compensation. Zamindar Uttamsingh for the whole amout of compensation awardable while Mangalji for his tenancy rights which had not come to an end then according to him.