JUDGMENT Malik, J. - This case has been argued with ability and at some length by Mr. S.C. Khare. His contention is that his client was not liable to pay court-fee on pendente lite interest. The suit was brought for realisation of money by enforcement of a charge. The Plaintiffs claimed a sum of Rs. 310 on the basis of an agreement dated November 23, 1875. The suit was decreed for Rs. 310 with interest at 3 per cent per annum pendente lite and future and with costs. The preliminary decree provided that the Plaintiffs would be entitled to get a final decree prepared after six months from April 17, 1944 the date of the decree. The Defendant filed an appeal. He valued his appeal at Rs. 310. On February 19, 1945, the appeal was dismissed. The second appeal was filed by the Defendant on July 13, 1945. The second appeal is also valued at Rs. 310. The preliminary decree for sale that was drawn up by the trial Court was for Rs. 310, principal and Rs 46-13-6 interest. The Stamp Reporter has made a report that the valuation of the appeal on the lower Court and in this Court should have been Rs. 356-13 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contested this report. He has relied on the case of Mithoo Lal v. Mst. Chameli (1934) 4 A W R 922. That was a suit for profits and a simple money decree for profits and for pendente lite interest was passed. The Office made a report demanding court-fee on the pendente lite interest decreed and a Bench of this Court held that court-fees on pendente lite interest was not payable. The grounds for the decision was that pendente lite interest was in the discretion of the Court and the Court was not bound to allow it. The Bench held that on the grounds on which court-fees were not payable on costs decreed but not appealed against, court-fees were not payable on pendente lite interest on a claim for simple money decree where no special ground had been taken challenging the awarding of pendente lite interest. That case has nothing to do with the case before me. The Bench held that on the grounds on which court-fees were not payable on costs decreed but not appealed against, court-fees were not payable on pendente lite interest on a claim for simple money decree where no special ground had been taken challenging the awarding of pendente lite interest. That case has nothing to do with the case before me. In a suit on a mortgage for enforcement of a security the interest is recoverable as a matter of right and the Court has no discretion, apart from the Debt Acts, to disallow pendente lite interest, The matter was considered by a Bench of this Court in Baldeo Singh v. Kalka Prasad (1913) 11 ALJ 20: 35 All 94. In that case the amount claimed up to the date of the suit on the basis of mortgage was Rs. 1,191-11-6. Interest from the date of the suit up to the date fixed for payment, which was six months, from the date of the decree, was Rs. 129-12 0. Rs. 166 was the costs awarded to the Plaintiffs. The total amount payable to the Plaintiffs was thus Rs. 1,487-7-6. The decree provided that the amount of Rs. 1,487-7-6 would be payable by the Defendants whether they paid the amount on January 9, 1912 which was the date fixed for payment or earlier. The result, therefore, was that even if the Defendants judgment debtors had wanted to pay up the amount on the date of the decree they would have bad to pay Rs. 1,487 7-6. The Bench held that the Defendants were bound to value their appeal and pay ad valorem court-fees on the amount due on the date of the decree minus costs and in view of the wording of the decree even though Rs. 1,321-7-6 included a portion of interest which would accrue due after the date of the decree they held that the proper valuation was Rs. 1,321-7-6 exclusive of costs and court-fees should by paid on that amount. The matter was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Raghubir Prasad v. Shankar Baksh Singh (1913) 11 A L J 1016. That was also a suit brought for recovery of amount due under a mortgage by enforcement of the mortgage. 1,321-7-6 exclusive of costs and court-fees should by paid on that amount. The matter was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Raghubir Prasad v. Shankar Baksh Singh (1913) 11 A L J 1016. That was also a suit brought for recovery of amount due under a mortgage by enforcement of the mortgage. The Full Bench held that court fees were recoverable on the amount due under the decree up to the date of the decree and on the date of the decree they held that the amount that was due to the Plaintiff was Rs. 632-12-11 and the Defendant was, therefore, bound to value his cross-objection at that figure and pay court-fees on that amount. Learned Counsel has urged that though their Lordships talk of the date of the decree all through their judgment, yet, it would appear from an examination of the facts of the case, that Pendente lite interest had not been allowed and the sum of Rs. 632 12-11 included interest only up to the date of the suit and future interest had been allowed after the date of the decree. Even if learned Counsel's contention is accepted, it only means that the pendente lite interest in that suit was nil. The. decision appears to me to lay down clearly that the amount due up to the date of the decree was the proper valuation in a mortgage suit for an appeal against the decree. The Full Bench decision is also an authority for the proposition that future interest after the date of the decree, unless it has been made immediately payable on the date of the decree, in case the judgment-debtor wishes to satify the decree on that date, need not be added to the valuation of the appeal. 2. The Appellant must, therefore, value, his appeal in this Court and his appeal in the lower Court at Rs. 310 plus interest due up to the date of the decree which would include no doubt pendente lite interest. The Stamp Reporter would check up the figures and in case any lesser sum than the sum already reported is due be would inform Mr. Khare who appears for the Defendant-Appellant. Two months time is allowed to learned Counsel to make good the deficiency.