Judgment C.P.Sinha, J. 1. This application is by the plaintiffs, and is against the order passed by the Court below demanding additional court-fee in the circumstances following. The plaintiffs brought a suit for redemption of a mortgage dated 10th August 1896. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 141 in respect of 3 bighas 1 katha and 5 dhurs. The suit was for redemption of the mortgage, and it was further prayed that, in case the property mortgaged had been lost or damaged due to the default of the mortgagees, a decree for Rs 4000 as compensation should Be passed against the defendants because Rs. 4000 represented the market value of the mortgaged property. The suit was valued at Rs. 141 and court-fee was paid on that amount. The suit was dismissed, and there was an appeal to the lower appellate Court. While the matter was pending in appeal, the Court held that, as the plaintiffs had asked for an alternative relief for compensation to the extent of Rs. 4000, the plaintiffs were liable to pay court-fee on Rs. 4000 in appeal, and the value of the appeal should be raised from Rs. 141 to Rs. 4000. 2. A suit for redemption is governed by Section 7 (ix) of the Court-fees Act, and it is as follows : "In suits against a mortgagee for the recovery of the property mortgaged, and in suits by a mortgagee to foreclose the mortgage, or, where the mortgage is made by conditional sale, to have the sale declared absolute--according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage ;" It is clear, therefore, that in a suit for redemption, for recovery of the property mortgaged, the court-fee has Sot to be paid according to the principal money secured by the mortgage. The amount secured by the mortgage in this case is Rs. 141, therefore, the court-fee has got to be paid on that amount. The Court below, however, thinks that, as an alternative prayer made by the plaintiffs is for Rs. 4000 as compensation, the court-fee should be paid on that amount. The Court below is in error. In a suit for redemption, the plaintiff prays in effect for recovery of the property mortgaged. The Court below, however, thinks that, as an alternative prayer made by the plaintiffs is for Rs. 4000 as compensation, the court-fee should be paid on that amount. The Court below is in error. In a suit for redemption, the plaintiff prays in effect for recovery of the property mortgaged. In this case, according to the allegations made by the plaintiffs, if the mortgaged property is lost altogether or damaged and the property cannot be restored back to the mortgagors, the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree for the market value of the property mortgaged. That, in my opinion, makes no difference. If under the law the plaintiffs are entitled to value the suit only at the amount secured by the mortgage, the mere fact that they have asked for the market price of the property mortgaged, in case the mortgaged property is lost or damaged, does not change the nature of the suit, and, therefore, value of the appeal should be as mentioned by the appellants, namely. Rs. 141, and court-fee is payable on that amount and not on Rs. 4000. 3 In the result, the application is allowed and the order of the Court below is set aside; bat there will be no order for costs.