ORDER : V.R. NEVASKAR, J. 1. Mr. Rege for the respondent raises a preliminary objection that the court-fee paid along with the memorandum of appeal is inadequate. He contends that reading Section 8 of the Madhya Bharat Court-Fees Act along with the provisions of Article 1, Schedule I of that Act it is clear that the appellants ought to have paid court-fee on the entire amount of compensation which they seek to claim in this appeal. 2. On the other hand Mr. Saxena for the appellants contends that inasmuch as part of the amount of compensation is lying deposited in the bank having been deposited therein under the orders of the Court under Section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act and part is yet to be recovered from the Government it is enough for him to obtain declaration as to his right to the same as against the respondent particularly as the Government from whom the amount is to be obtained is not interested in this appeal and that for that reason payment of fixed court-fee of Rs. 15 is enough. He relied upon the decision reported in A.I.R. 1932 Mad 438 Thammayya Vs. Venkataramanamma in support of his contention. 3. In my opinion Mr. Rege's objection ought to prevail. 4. The facts of the case necessary for consideration of the preliminary objection are that Zamindar Uttamsingh owned certain lands in Kasba Ujjain. Out of the same Mangalji the father of appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 and husband of appellant No. 4 had obtained the disputed piece on rent from Uttamsingh After the lands had been acquired by the Government each of the parties set up a claim for compensation. Zamindar Uttamsingh for the whole amount of compensation awardable while Mangalji for his tenancy rights which had not come to an end then according to him. 5. The Collector gave an award by which he awarded Rs. 1,054 to Uttamsingh in respect of his Zamindari rights while Rs. 3,475 to Mangalji in respect of his tenancy rights. 6. Parties required the Collector to refer the matter to the District Judge under the Land Acquisition Act. 7. The learned District Judge after trial held that respondent Uttamsingh was entitled to the whole of the compensation amount which he fixed at Rs. 12,880 and not Mangalji of his heirs. 8. The present appeal is filed by Mangalji's heirs. 6. Parties required the Collector to refer the matter to the District Judge under the Land Acquisition Act. 7. The learned District Judge after trial held that respondent Uttamsingh was entitled to the whole of the compensation amount which he fixed at Rs. 12,880 and not Mangalji of his heirs. 8. The present appeal is filed by Mangalji's heirs. The amount disallowed to them and which they claim is Rs. 12,880 and the question is whether they can, file this appeal on fixed Court-fee or ought to pay ad valorem court-fee on the aforesaid sum of Rs. 12,880. 9. Section 8 of the Courts-Fees Act which is relevant in this connection reads as follows:- "The amount of fee payable under this Act on a memorandum of appeal against an order relating to compensation under any Act for the time being in force for the acquisition of land for public purposes shall be computed according to the difference between the amount awarded and the amount claimed by the appellant." 10. This section is not a charging provision. It only provides a rule for computation of court-fees in certain class of cases dealt with by it, The Section indicates that there is in the Court-fees Act elsewhere a charging provision under which court-fees are laviable ad valorem on the basis of difference between this amount claimed as compensation and the amount awarded. 11. The section therefore clearly suggests that no fixed court-fee is leviable in the cases governed by the section This view proceeds from the section itself and is also supported by the decision reported in A. I. R. 1932 Cal 346 in re Ananda Lal. 12. Rankin C. J. in that case observed as follows:- "Section 8 while not itself imposing any fee upon any one provided a rule for computation of the fee payable under the Act in a certain class of cases. What it says is that, in the class of cases which it deals with, the amount of fee payable under the Act on a memorandum of appeal, it is to be computed according to the difference between the two sums. What it says is that, in the class of cases which it deals with, the amount of fee payable under the Act on a memorandum of appeal, it is to be computed according to the difference between the two sums. Now that section standing in the text of the Act proceeds clearly upon the assumption, otherwise in the Act there is a charge which is an ad valorem charge and is not a fixed charge; but for that assumption there would be nothing to compute, and the only way in which it can be said that there is a charge which has to be computed is that the charge is imposed by Article 1, Schedule I, of the Court-Fees Act." 13. Moreover, Section 26 (2) of the Land. Acquisition Act lays down that an award granted by the Court under Part III of the Act shall be deemed to be a 'decree' and the statement of grounds of such award a 'judgment' within the meaning of those terms in Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. 14. It therefore follows that when an appeal is to be preferred against the award under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act it is an appeal against what in law is a decree of a Court and therefore the charging provision under Section 4 read with Article 1, Schedule I to the Court-Fees Act applies and Court-fee is to be paid ad valorem. 15. Thus the provision is general and applies to all cases, whether the dispute be with regard to apportionment between two contesting claimants or between the Government and the claimants the amount of court-fee will be computed in accordance with Section 8 and is chargeable under Schedule I, Article 1 of the Court-Fees Act ad valorem 16. But it is contended by Mr. Saxena that a part of the amount is deposited in a Bank under the orders of the Court and the rest is to be recovered from the Government. 17. The portion lying in deposit in the Bank should be taken to be in CUSTODIA LEGIS and no ad valorem court-fee should be considered necessary. As regards the amount recoverable from the Government mere declaration should suffice. He relied upon the decision in A.I.R. 1932 Mad 438 Thammayya Vs. Venkataramanamma for the proposition that where money is subject to the control of the Court fixed court-fee is enough. As regards the amount recoverable from the Government mere declaration should suffice. He relied upon the decision in A.I.R. 1932 Mad 438 Thammayya Vs. Venkataramanamma for the proposition that where money is subject to the control of the Court fixed court-fee is enough. 18. The facts of the Madras case relied upon by the learned counsel are different. In that case the successful claimant was a Hindu widow and the compensation money was not held payable to her but only interests thereon was payable. Under these circumstances it was held that the compensation money lying deposited in the Bank in pursuance of Section 32 (1) (b) of the Land Acquisition Act continued to be in CUSTODIA LEGIS in spite of the order of the District Court holding her to be entitled to possession of the land but for the acquisition. Even in that case it was held that where a successful claimant in a land acquisition case before the District Judge is declared to be entitled to immediate payment the unsuccessful opponent preferring appeal against such an order is bound to pay ad valorem court-fee as in a claim for money. 19. The principle on which this view is based appears to be that where the Court declares a successful claimant to be entitled to immediate payment of the compensation money the amount ceases to be in CUSTODIA LEGIS and becomes the property of the claimant and it is immaterial then whether the same is lying deposited in Court or is deposited in a Bank under Section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act. Mr. Saxena's contention, that the fact that the money is lying deposited in a Bank under the orders of the Court under Section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act makes a difference, cannot be accepted. The moment the Court gives its decision holding one of the successful claimant being immediately entitled to the whole or part of the compensation money any other claimant who wishes to appeal ought to pay ad valorem court-fee under Article I Schedule I to the extent to which he wishes to assail the decision of the District Judge. This view appears to be well settled and has been taken in number of cases such as I.L.R. 21 All 354 Sheo Rattan Rai Vs. Mohri I.L.R. 39 Cal 906 Trinayani Dasi Vs. Krishna Lal De, A.I.R. 1929 Mad 223 Mahalinga Vs. This view appears to be well settled and has been taken in number of cases such as I.L.R. 21 All 354 Sheo Rattan Rai Vs. Mohri I.L.R. 39 Cal 906 Trinayani Dasi Vs. Krishna Lal De, A.I.R. 1929 Mad 223 Mahalinga Vs. Teetharappa: A. I. R. 1932 Cal 346, In re Ahand Lal and A. I. R. 1951 Pat 608 Braja Kew at and another Vs. Madanlal Agarwalla and others. 20. I therefore hold that the appellant is bound to pay ad valorem court-fee under Article 1, Schedule 1 in accordance with the method of computation indicated in Section 8 of the Court-Fees Act and it is not enough for him to pay fixed court-fee of Rs. 15. 21. The appellants shall make good the deficiency in court-fees within a fortnight from to-day. S.M. Samvatsar, J. 22. I agree.