JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan, J. - This is an application u/s 6-B of the Court Fees Act VII of 1871 as amended by the U.P Act IX of 1938 on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Stamps for revision of the order passed by the District Judge of Sitapur ho ding that the court-fee paid by the appellants in his Court is sufficient. The facts are these : One Ganga Bakhsh Singh and his so) applied u/s 4 of the U. F Encumbered Estates Act. A claim on this basis of a mortgage executed by Gangi Bakhsh Singh was put forward by hi mortgagees Raja Ram and others. Gang: Bakhsh Singh, in answer to the claim, up the defence that he had executed ; mortgage as manager of the joint Hindi family consisting of himself and his three brothers for legal necessity. The brothers when accordingly added as co-debtors u/s 9 of the Encumbered Estates Act The Special Judge, second grade, when investigated the claim apportioned the liability between the co-debtors and passes a decree for his. 494 against Ganga Bakhsi Singh and for Rs; 1,482 against his brothers The creditors carried an appeal to the District Judge and paid upon the memorandum of appeal a court-fee of Rs. 15 only, The Inspector of Stamps during his inspection discovered the deficiency and made a report that ad valorem court-fee should have been paid upon Rs. 1,482, which the creditors had prayed in the memorandum of appeal should be further decreed in their favour against Ganga Bakhsh Singh. A reference to the memorandum of appeal shows that the appellants had stated is ground No. 3 that the decree passed against the brothers of Ganga Bakhsh Singh was futile and the decree was contrary to law. It was prayed that the decree passed by the lower Court be set aside and in its place a decree for the whole amount be passed against respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who are no other than the applicant-landlord Ganga Bakhsh Singh and his son. The appeal was valued at Rs. 1,976. The sub- stance of the relief asked for by the creditors was that in addition to the decree for Rs. 494 already passed in their favour against Ganga Bakhsh Singh a further decree for Rs. 1,482 should be passed against him and the decree passed against his brothers should be vacated. The appeal was valued at Rs. 1,976. The sub- stance of the relief asked for by the creditors was that in addition to the decree for Rs. 494 already passed in their favour against Ganga Bakhsh Singh a further decree for Rs. 1,482 should be passed against him and the decree passed against his brothers should be vacated. In view of these facts it seems clear that the appellants are liable to pay ad valorem court-fee upon the amount of Rs. 1,482 claimed by them in the memorandum of appeal. The case falls under Article 1 of Schedule I of the Court-Fees Act and cannot come under the descriptions in Article 11 or 17 of the Court Fees Act. Whether the appellant in a decree passed by the Special Judge is a landlord who claims reduction of the amount in appeal or a creditor who appeals for an increase in the amount of the decree in either case an ad valorem court-fee must be paid. Learned Counsel for the creditors relies upon a decision in Shantranji Ji v. Deputy Commissioner, Manager Court of Wards, Mahtwa Estate, Kheri. That case, however, did not relate to the amount for which the decree was passed but to the manner in which decree was to be enforced or executed. In the present case it is not merely that the decree is to be set aside against the brothers of the landlord applicant and is to be passed against the landlord alone but the amount of the decree originally passed against the landlord has to be increased by a sum of Rs. 1,482. The decision relied upon, therefore, is not applicable to the present case. 2. Accordingly I hold that the creditors are liable to pay ad valorem court-fee at Rs. 1,482, on which a court-fee of Rs. 140 is payable against Rs. 15 already paid. They are, therefore, liable to pay the deficiency of Rs. 125. 3. I allow the application with Rs. 60 costs to the Government Advocate.