1. The only question raised in this appeal which is from an order of the District Judge rejecting an appeal on the ground of the memorandum of appeal not bearing the proper Court-fee stamp, is, whether the learned Judge was right in holding that the appellant was bound to pay the whole amount of Court-fee demanded, or whether the memorandum of appeal, as presented, bore the proper Court-fee stamp.
2. The facts upon which this question arises are shortly these. The suit was one for arrears of rent. The defendant admitted the claim, but prayed that the amount be made payable by three instalments. The First Court allowed the defendant's prayer, and gave a decree for the sum of Rs. 1,285-2-7 1/2 gs., and costs, Rs. 156, amounting in all to Rs. 1,441-2-7 1/2 gs., to be paid by three equal instalments, payable, respectively, in Choitro 1297, Assin 1298, and Choitro 1298, interest being charged on the instalments, if not paid on due date, at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum. The date of the decree was the 25th November 1890, corresponding with the 10th Aughran 1297. The plaintiff appealed against this decree, being dissatisfied with the order making the amount decreed payable by instalments, and he paid the Court-fee that would be payable for Rs. 130, which was the amount of interest during the pendency of the suit, but he did not pay any Court-fee in respect of Rs. 1,285-2-7 1/2 gs., as he was required by the Lower Appellate Court to do.
3. Now, having regard to the provisions of Article I, Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, read with Section 16 of that Act, it is clear that an appellant is bound to pay a Court-fee on a memorandum of appeal from a decree which gives him only partial relief, upon the difference between the values of the relief he claims to be entitled to and that granted by the decree appealed against. In the present case the plaintiff got a decree for the amount of rent claimed, only the decree, instead of making the sum payable at once, made it payable by three equal instalments. The amount of Court-fee payable upon the memorandum of appeal by the plaintiff, appellant, in such a case was, therefore, clearly not the Court-fee payable in respect of the whole sum of Rs. 1,285-2-7 1/2 gs., but was only that payable upon the difference between the value of the relief he claimed, which was a decree for the payment of the whole sum immediately, and the value of the relief which he has obtained, that is, the said sum payable by three instalments. The exact difference then will be the difference between Rs. 1,285-2-7 1/2 gs., and the sum of the present values of the three instalments payable on the dates mentioned in the decree, reckoning interest at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum. On making a rough calculation it appears that this difference is something less than Rs. 60. It further appears that the plaintiff was not bound to value his appeal, for purposes of the Court Fees Act, at the sum of Rs. 130, as he has done, that being the amount of interest during the pendency of the suit, which would be allowed as ancillary to the main relief claimed. As the Court-fee paid was sufficient to cover a sum of Rs. 130, and as in our opinion the value of the relief claimed in the appeal which was the subject-matter of the appeal is less than that sum, we think the memorandum was sufficiently stamped for the purpose of the Court Fees Act, and that the learned Judge below was wrong in rejecting the appeal. The case must therefore go back to the Lower Appellate Court in order that the appeal may be allowed to be registered and proceeded with according to law. Costs will abide the result.