JUDGMENT Kidwai, J. - Kishori Lal pawned certain articles with Lala Babbu Lal for a sum of Rs. 250/-. About a week later he pawned certain other articles with the same gentleman for a sum of Rs. 500/-. This was in 1936. On the 2nd of September, 1943, Lala Kishori Lal filed the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, against Lalas Babbu Lal and Ram Dass, his son, u/s 33 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act for an account. The suit was dismissed on the 21st of May, 1944. Lala Kishori Lal appealed and the case was remanded for the trial of certain other issues one of which was whether there was any subsisting transaction, 2. On the 10th of April 1945, the suit was decreed, it being held that the transaction was a subsisting transaction and it was declared that a sum of Rs. 1,318-13 6/-(sic) were due to Lala Babbu Lal from Kishori Lal. Lala Babbu Lal had in the meanwhile died and his sons had been brought on the record. They appealed against the decree of the learned Munsif u/s 33 of the Agriculturists' Relief Act but they did not challenge the correctness of the amount found due they contended in their appeal that the transaction had come to an end owing to the fact that the pawned articles had been sold after due notice to Lala Kishori Lal. They valued the relief which they sought in the appeal at Rs. 150/- and they paid an ad valorem Court fee of Rs. 10,15.0/-. 3. There was an objection as to court-fee on the ground that the valuation fixed was not a reasonable valuation. The learned Additional Civil Judge of Lucknow had held that Rs. 750/- is the reasonable valuation and he directed the Appellants to make good the deficiency of court fee calculated on the basis of a valuation of Rs. 750/-. The Appellants have appealed under the provisions of the Court Fees Act as amended by the United Provinces. The sole point for determination in this appeal is whether the Court below was justified in holding that Rs. 750/- was the proper valuation. 4. 750/-. The Appellants have appealed under the provisions of the Court Fees Act as amended by the United Provinces. The sole point for determination in this appeal is whether the Court below was justified in holding that Rs. 750/- was the proper valuation. 4. It is agreed that the provision of the Court Fees Act applicable to a case such as the present is Section 7 (iv)(b) since this is a suit for accounts vide Harendra Shanker v. Khiali Ram 1940 O.W.N. 1130 F.B. and Lharat Singh v. Thakur Chhotay Singh 1940 O.W.N. 1185. The court-fee, therefore, chargeable was a court-fee payable according to the amount at which the reliefs sought is valued in the plaint or the memorandum of appeal. Thus the right has been given to the Appellants to value the reliefs sought by them. In the present case they valued that relief at Rs. 150/-. The lower Appellant Court thinks that this is too low a valuation. It, however, admits that there is no material on the record on which it could arrive at a different valuation. It will be noticed that the amount payable to Lala Babbu Lal's heirs is not disputed in case it is found that the transaction has not come to an end. What is claimed is that the transaction no longer subsists because the pawned articles had been sold and, therefore, there is no liability to account. The benefit that might accrue to the Appellants is the difference between the value of the pawned articles and the sum of Rs. 1,318 13-6/-. In the absence of any material on the record to show that this exceeds Rs. 150/- there is no reason why the valuation placed upon their relief by the Appellants should not be accepted. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is allowed. The order of the lower Court is set aside and it is held that the memorandum of appeal is sufficiently valued. The lower appellate Court will proceed to dispose of the case on merits.