JUDGMENT : 1. The point for determination in this revision is, if in a suit to redeem the pledge of ornaments, the court-fee is payable under Section 7 clause (ix) of Court Fees Act on the principal amount of the loan or on the market value of the ornaments under Section 7, clause (iii) of the said Act. Section 4 of the Indore Court Fees Act which is in force in Madhyabharat corresponds to Section 7 of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870. The plaintiff non-applicant brought a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Shajapur, alleging that he took a loan of Rs. 250/- from the defendant on pledge of certain specified ornaments. The amount due for the loan, with interest wad alleged to be Rs. 440/- and the plaintiff prayed, that on payment of this sum by him, the defendant should be ordered to return the ornaments in specie. The Civil Judge thought that the value of this suit was only Rs. 440/- and therefore returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court, meaning thereby the Court of Munsif which had then jurisdiction upto Rs. 500/- only. 2. The plaintiff then went in appeal to the learned District Judge who was of opinion that the Court-fee should be levied according to clause (ix) of Section 7 of the Court-Fees Act and that the learned Civil Judge had jurisdiction. The appeal was, therefore, allowed and the case was sent back to the Civil Judge's Court. The applicant defendant has now come in this Court and wants me to revise this order. 3. In - 'Hiralal v. Dhulji', (Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1949, (Madh. B. Gwalior) (A) a similar question had come before me and therein I had observed that Section 7 of the Court-Fees Act is divided into several clauses, but as the section in clause (iii) and sub-clause (a) of clause (iv) only deals with suits relating to movable property, Clauses v, vi, vii, viii, ix and xi deal with claims relating to immovable property. Section 7, clause (ix) deals with redemption of the mortgaged property which, according to my opinion, considering the scheme under Section 7 must be immovable. There is no doubt that there can be mortgage of movable property also. Section 7, clause (ix) deals with redemption of the mortgaged property which, according to my opinion, considering the scheme under Section 7 must be immovable. There is no doubt that there can be mortgage of movable property also. Relying on certain observations in - 'Dwarika v. Bagawati', AIR 1939 Rang 413 (B) and - 'Raghunathaiya v. Sobina Saldanha', AIR 1919 Mad 946 (C), I held in the case adverted to above, that a pledge differs from a mortgage of movable property in important respects. A pledgee holds possession of the property for the purpose of securing to himself the advance which he had made. He has no right of foreclosure since he never had the absolute ownership at law. The pledgee has no property in the pawn but has merely a right to sell. Then 'pawn' should not be taken, to be an equitable mortgage. It is after all a security intermediate between a simple loan and a mortgage which wholly passes property in the thing conveyed - 'Joyti Prokash v. Muti Prokash', AIR 1918 Cal 947 (D). In the case before me, considering the contents of the plaint, the ornaments are alleged to have been delivered to the defendant for the purpose that they should be held as security for the payment of the loan and I have no doubt in my mind that it is a transaction of 'pledge' in which possession has been delivered without passing the ownership in the ornaments to the creditor. In other words, the property has been pledged with the defendant within the meaning of Section 172 of the Contract Act. It is, therefore, note a transaction of mortgage of movables and a suit to redeem a pledge cannot be regarded as a suit to redeem the mortgage falling under clause (ix) of Section 7 of the Court-Fees Act. I, therefore, respectfully agree with the opinion expressed in - 'Jagannath v. Fatechand', AIR 1949 Nag 363 (E) that the only other provision of the Court Fees Act, in which the suit can then fall, is clause (iii) of Section 7 and the suit must, therefore, be valued, according to that clause at the market value of the subject matter. In para. 9, sub-para (ii) of the plaint, the plaintiff has valued the ornaments at Rs. 1579/- and therefore this will be the suit valuation both, for purposes of Court-fees and for jurisdiction. 4. In para. 9, sub-para (ii) of the plaint, the plaintiff has valued the ornaments at Rs. 1579/- and therefore this will be the suit valuation both, for purposes of Court-fees and for jurisdiction. 4. The learned District Judge's order dated 1-4-1950 is not clear and is also erroneous. He held that clause (ix) of Section 7 would apply. In that case, the learned Civil Judge's order was correct and ought not to have bean, reversed. But as I have stated above clause (ix) has no application but clause (iii) would apply. It may be noted here that after the passing of the order by the learned Civil Judge there have, however, been several changes in the jurisdiction vested in the Civil Courts. The learned District Judge has not considered this change in the jurisdiction of the various Courts brought but by the Madhya Bharat Civil Courts Act which he ought to have considered, while delivering the judgment. The rulings reported in - 'Lachmeshwar Prasad v. Keshwarlal', AIR 1941 FC 5 (F); - 'Shyamakant Lal v. Rambhajan Singh', AIR 1939 FC 74 (G). - 'Doorga Prosad v. Secy. of State.', AIR 1945 PC 62 (H); - 'Har Prasad v. Ram Anand Prasad', AIR 1946 Oudh 223 at p. 225 (I); - 'Lakshmi Ammal v. Narayanaswami', AIR 1950 Mad 321 (J); - 'Gorakala Kankaiya v. Janardha Padhai', 36 Mad 439 (FB) (K) and - 'Shantiniketan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Madhavlal', AIR 1936 Bom 37 at p. 40 (L) lay down that appellate courts do and are entitled to take into account the changes in legislation which occur between the date of the decree of the lower Court and the date of hearing of the appeal. 5. The decree and order of the District Judge are, therefore, set aside and the case is remitted back to him for taking note of subsequent legislation (i.e., Madhya-Bharat Civil Courts Act Samvat 2006) and pass suitable orders for sending the case to the proper Court in the light of observations made above. No order as to costs. Revision allowed.