JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— This matter comes before us on a report of the office in regard to the Court-fee payable on the appeal. The suit was brought to raise the amount due upon a mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property. The plaintiffs in the suit claimed future interest from the date of the institution of the suit up to the date of realization. The court below awarded future interest up to the date fixed by the decree for payment. The plaintiffs objected to the limit fixed by the decree of the lower court in regard to the time up to which interest should be calculated and filed an appeal in respect of interest from the date fixed by the decree for payment up to the date of realization. The amount of this interest, it is obvious, could not be calculated at the time when the appeal was filed. The appeal was allowed and according to the report of the office a sum of Rs. 47,400 odd has been awarded in respect of future interest. The office has reported that a fee is now payable in respect of the amount so added to the decree, namely, a Court-fee of Rs. 1,155. Only Rs. 10 were paid on the filing of the appeal. It is contended by the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs that Rs. 10 was the fee prescribed by the Court-Fees Act. Article 17(vi) of Schedule II to the Act provides that in respect of a plaint a memorandum of appeal in every suit (not previously mentioned) where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by the Act, a fee of Rs. 10 shall be paid. 2. We are not aware of any other provision of the Act which regulates the fee payable upon an appeal preferred in respect of future interest. The office seem to think that section 11 of the Act meets this case. 10 shall be paid. 2. We are not aware of any other provision of the Act which regulates the fee payable upon an appeal preferred in respect of future interest. The office seem to think that section 11 of the Act meets this case. That section provides that “in suit for mesne profits, or for immoveable, property and mesne profits, or for an account, if the profits or amount decreed are or is in excess of the profits claimed or the amount at which the plaintiff valued the relief sought, the decree shall not be executed until difference between the fee actually paid and the fee which would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the profits or the amount so decreed shall have been paid to the proper officer.” We look in vain in this section for anything to denote that it included a claim for future interest in respect of a mortgage debt which is sought to be enforced by sale. We think that it has been rightly contended here that sub-section (vi) of article 17, schedule II of the Act is applicable. In this view we are supported by a decision of WESTROPP, C.J., in the case of Krishnarav v. Antaji Virupuksha, [1874] 12 Bom., H.C.R., 227.. In that case it was held that the Court-Fees Act, section II, is not applicable to interest accruing upon a decree in a suit which is neither for mesne profits, nor for immoveable property and mesne profits, nor for an account, but simply an action for money lent. In that case the suit was for money lent by the plaintiff to the defendant, together with interest. There is no difference in principle so far as we can see between the case of a suit for money lent and a suit for sale on mortgage. Neither of these suits are included in section II. We therefore allow the objection to the report and declare that the amount of Court-fee already paid is sufficient.