Panchapakesa Ayyar, J.
1. This is a petition by one Rengachari for revising and setting aside the order of the District Judge, West Tanjore, in A. S. No. 73 of 1953 filed by him, directing him to pay court-fee on the entire amount of the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage, and not merely on the market value of the one-fourth of the mortgaged properties which he claimed for himself as not redeemable.
2. I have perused the entire records and heard the learned counsel on both sides- I have no doubt that, on the facts of this case, where the plaintiff has got a decree for redemption of all the mortgaged properties, including the properties claimed by the petitioner, and the petitioner is attacking the entire decree and wants the entire decree to be set aside in toto and the suit dismissed, the proper court-fee payable would be certainly on the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage.
Reliance was placed by Mr. Raghavarama Sastri, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ruling of the Patna High Court in Ramakant v. Kamla Prasad, : AIR1951Pat183 (A); But the facts there were different. The correctness of the decree for redemption was not challenged in that case in toto. Only the correctness of a portion of it was challenged. But, here, the petitioner challenged the entire redemption decree in favour of the plaintiff, and wanted the suit to be dismissed with costs. So, apart from the question of splitting up the mortgage, the petitioner had to pay the court-fee on the entire principal amount as he wanted the entire suit to be dismissed, and had not merely attacked the decree with regard to the one-fourth share now claimed by him. One need not wonder why ho did so.
Sometimes a person claiming one-fourth interest in the mortgaged properties may still want the entire redemption decree to be set aside either out of spite towards the plaintiff or in collusion with the other. persons interested who prefer to remain in the background. The appeal has to be valued according tothe relief prayed for. As the petitioner wanted theentire suit to be dismissed, and challenged also thecorrectness of the decree regarding the three-fourthsof the mortgaged properties in which he says hehas no interest, he was rightly directed to pay thecourt-fee on the principal money expressed to besecured by the instrument of mortgage. There isno need therefore, to go into the other questions or todiscuss whether the court-fee payable would differif the petitioner's attack was only regarding one-fourth. This civil revision petition deserves to beand is hereby dismissed; but, in the circumstances,without costs. Two months' time from today givento pay the deficit court-fee.