JAGARNATH PRASAD Vs. BHALA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 5, Court-fees Act, and relates to a suit for recovery of Rs. 8000 due under a mortgage bond. The suit was decreed, but pendente lite interest and future interest were disallowed. "Upon that point alone the plaintiffs have filed an appeal to this Court. The appellants did not state the valuation of the appeal for purposes of court-fee, apparently on the ground that the value could not be ascertained, and paid only a fixed court-fee of Rs. 15 under Schedule 2, Art. 17 (vi), Court-fees Act.

(2.) The learned taxing officer in his order of reference expresses the opinion that in respect of future interest the amount may be an unas-certainable sum, the date of realization being unknown, but the claim for pendente lite interest can easily be ascertained, as both ends of the period, the date of institution of the suit and the date of the decree, are known, and interest was claimed in the plaint at a definite rate. The Stamp Reporter upon the authority in Damodar Prasad V/s. Hardeo Prasad a decision of King J. as Taxing Judge of the Allahabad High Court, has suggested that ad valorem court-fee is payable on this sum under Schedule 1, Art. 1, Court-fees Act.

(3.) For the appellants it is contended, relying upon a Patna Full Bench case, Thakan Chaudhuri V/s. Lachhmi Narain A.I.R. 1934 Pat. 571 and certain other Patna decisions referred to and approved therein, and also upon the Bombay case, Vithal Hari Athavle V/s. Govind Vasudeo Thosar 17 Bom. 4l that the court-fee of Rs. 15 was mistakenly paid and that in fact no court-fee at all is payable on the appeal.