Judgment 1. Defendants 15, 15 (a), 15 (b), 16 and 17 have moved this Court in revision against the order dated the 23rd of March 1950, passed by the Munsiff, 2nd Court, Siwan, whereby he held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and that the Court-fee paid was sufficient. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for redemption in which the above order was passed. The redemption suit was valued by them at Rs. 400.00 and Court-fee was paid on that valuation in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (ix) of the Court-Fees Act. In the plaint as filed, the plaintiffs had also claimed mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 1,744/- and future mesne profits. The Court below has held that the Court-fee paid in accordance with the provisions of Section 7 (ix) of the Court-Pees Act was sufficient, and that he had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3. Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath, appearing for the petitioners, contended before us that, by inclusion of the claim of Rs. 1,744/-, the suit goes beyond the jurisdiction of the Munsiff, 2nd Court, Siwan, who has jurisdiction to try suits up the value of Rs. 1,000.00 only. He submitted that, if subsequently it is found that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction, all the proceedings taken before him will be set aside, and his clients will be put to loss unnecessarily. He, therefore, suggested that, if the plaintiffs reduced the claim for mesne profits to such an amount as to bring the suit within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff, the question of want of jurisdiction will not arise. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs opposite party, has, in accordance with that suggestion, filed a petition for amendment of the plaint, by which the claim for mesne profits has been tentatively reduced to Rs. 500/-from the original figure of Rs. 1,744/-. We have permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint in the light of the petition for amendment filed on their behalf. The plaint will, therefore, be amended by the order of this Court. 4. Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath then pointed out to us that the schedule attached to the plaint showing the account of mesne profits also should be amended. 1,744/-. We have permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint in the light of the petition for amendment filed on their behalf. The plaint will, therefore, be amended by the order of this Court. 4. Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath then pointed out to us that the schedule attached to the plaint showing the account of mesne profits also should be amended. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs opposite party requested us to ignore the schedule containing the account of mesne profits attached to the plaint as having been deleted, with permission to his clients to adduce evidence regarding it in future. They are allowed to do so. 5. Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath further contended that the valuation of the suit, inspite of the amendment will not be Rs. 400.00 only, but it should be raised to Rs. 900/-, and the plaintiffs should be directed to pay Court-fee on the total amount of valuation. In our opinion, this argument is not available to the petitioners as it is a settled practice of this Court not to allow a defendant to come in revision against the order of the Court below on the question of Court-fee. The petitioners have, therefore, no right to urge at this stage that the Court-fee paid is insufficient. So far as the question of valuation of the suit is concerned, the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of SIR MOHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN V/s. Mt. Motai, AIR (35) 1948 P C 36, settles the point. In that case, it was held that, in a suit for redemption the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction should be the amount payable to the mortgagee, and not the amount of gain to the mortgagor. In the present case, it is clear that the sum of Rs. 400.00 was secured by the usufructuary mortgage. The mortgagees were not entitled, in this suit, to any amount higher than Rs. 400/-. In that view of the matter, the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction also had been rightly given at Rs. 400/-. Mr. Tar- keshwar Nath. tried to distinguish the case of SIR MOHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN V. Mt. Motai, AIR (35) 1948 P G 36, by submitting that in that case there was no claim for mesne profits. In that view of the matter, the valuation of the suit for the purposes of jurisdiction also had been rightly given at Rs. 400/-. Mr. Tar- keshwar Nath. tried to distinguish the case of SIR MOHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN V. Mt. Motai, AIR (35) 1948 P G 36, by submitting that in that case there was no claim for mesne profits. According to him, the inclusion of the claim for mesne profits in this case brings it within the purview of Sec.17 of the Court-Fees Act. We are, however, not inclined to agree with Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath. The present suit does not include two or more distinct subjects. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that "distinct subject" has been held to mean "distinct causes of action" in the case of BRIJ KRISHNA Das V/s. Murli Rai, 4 Pat I, J. 703. But that was not a redemption suit. In the present case, however, the plaintiffs have given only one cause of action. In that view of the matter, the present suit cannot be said to come within the purview of Sec.17 of the Court-Fees Act. 6. In our opinion, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath. 7. The result is that the revision petition is rejected, and the rule is discharged. The plaintiffs opposite party are entitled to their costs : hearing fee one gold mohur.