Pirbhu Narain Singh vs Sita Ram and Others

Sir John Edge, Kt., C.J.—I am of opinion that the stamp is sufficient, and I so decide for the following reasons. S. 7, sub-s. 9, of the Court Fees Act, VII of 1870, enacts that in, suits such as this the amount of fee payable shall be computed according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage, and does not make the amount of the fee to depend on the balance which the mortgagor may say is due, or on that which the mortgagee alleges to be due. In the suit the mortgagor claimed a decree for redemption on the allegation that the mortgage debt had been satisfied. So far as the court-fee on the plaint was concerned, it was immaterial whether the mortgage debt had in fact been satisfied, or whether redemption could only be had on payment of Rs. 2,15,446-15-6.

This is the plaintiff-mortgagor''s appeal, and it appears to me that the relief which he is claiming in this appeal is a decree for redemption of the mortgaged property on payment of the amount, if any, which is due. That appears to me to be a relief which it is impossible to value. In my opinion we must apply s. 7, sub-s. ix. If, on the other hand, the decree below had decreed redemption on payment of, say, Rs. 500, and the defendants, mortgagees were appealing on the ground that the amount due was Rs. 2,00,000, I am of opinion that the amount of court-fee should be calculated on the difference between Rs. 500 and Rs. 2,00,000.