VITTAL Vs. DIGAMBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against an order of the lower appellate Court, ordering payment of ad valorem court -fee on a memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner against a final decree. The petitioner contends that as he has already paid fall court -fee on his appeal against the preliminary decree, even though it has been disallowed, he 13 entitled to file the appeal against the final decree on the payment of fixed fee of two rupees. The counsel for the petitioner relies on the authority of Venkatachala Chetti v. Katesa Chetti,, A. I. R. 1937 Mad 539. The counsel should have also read the other decision referred to in the authority relied upon by him and reported in In re Supputhayammal, 55 Mad. 664. In this case, it is clearly laid down that where an appeal against a preliminary decree has been decided, the appellant is not entitled to any such reduction in the court -fee. Then there are two judgments of our Court to the same effect, viz.,, 31 Deccan L. R. 103 and, 35 Deccan L. R. 776. The revision application is, therefore, rejected with costs. The revision petitioner is directed to pay the court -fee due within one month from the date of this judgment.

(2.) I agree.