( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of mortgage property. By the preliminary decree, the plaintiff was directed to deposit Rs. 2,033 within six months thereof. The plaintiff deposited Rs. 2,000 within the time stipulated and the balance of Rs. 33 after that period. While depqsiting the balance, he had made an application under Or. 34, R. 8 CPC for passing the final decree, evidently requesting the Court to accept the belated payment. The Court while accepting the said deposit made a final decree. Against that decree, the defendant filed an appeal before the Court of the Civil Judge, Gadag, on a court-fee stamp of Re. 1. The said appeal was eventually dismissed holding that the final decree passed by the trial Court was legal. ( 2 ) THE defendant being aggrieved, has come up in Second Appeal. He has paid a Court fee of Rs. 10 on the memorandum of appeal under art. 3 (iii) (1) (a) of Sch. II of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation act, 1958 (called shortly 'the Act' ). The Office has raised an objection stating that the fee paid is not sufficient and the appellant ought to pay Court fee as provided under S. 32 (8) read with S. 49 of the Act. Counsel on both sides have ably assisted me to appreciate the point in controversy. ( 3 ) MR. Venkatachala, learned II Addl Govt Advocate, in support of the office objection urged that Art. S (iii) (1) (a) of the Act is not attracted to the case on hand, since- the appeal arises out of a suit for redemption, for which a special provision is made under the Act. It is true that 3. 32 (8.) of the Act provides for the payment of Court fee in a suit for redemption. It reads :" In a suit against a mortgagee for redempiton of a mortgage, fee shall be computed on the amount due on the mortgage as stated in the plaint or on one-fourth of the principal amount secured under the mortgage, whichever it higher. "section 49 of the Act provides :"save as provided in S. 48 the fee payable in an appeal shall be the same fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal. "section 49 of the Act provides :"save as provided in S. 48 the fee payable in an appeal shall be the same fee that would be payable in the Court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal. " (Proviso omitted) ( 4 ) IF the subject-matter in the appeal before me relates to the right of redemption, then there is no doubt that fee on the memorandum of appeal should be paid as it was paid in the Court of first instance. But it seems to me that that is not the subject-matter in this appeal. The appellant does not dispute the validity of the preliminary decree nor the quantum of the amount specified thereunder. His only grievance in essence is limited to the relief given to the plaintiff by extending the time for depositing the balance of Rs. 33 and passing the final decree thereon. According to him, the Court ought not to have accepted the belated deposit or extended the time stipulated under the preliminary decree for depositing the amount. If the belated deposit was rejected by the Court, then automatically by operation of Or. 34, R. 8 of CPC, the plaintiff's right to redeem would be extinguished. The real relief in dispute, therefore, is regarding the period extended by the trial Court to deposit the amount mentioned in the preliminmry decree. The Act does not make any provision for payment of Court fee in the appeal where such a relief is sought. In view of the peculiar circumstance of the case, Art. 3 (iii) (1) (a) of the Act alone appears to be applicable. ( 5 ) MY view finds support from the following decision of this Court (although it was on a different point ). In Mahaboob Shahi Kulabarga Mills v. Kamaladevi (1973) 2 Myslj. 548. a question arose as to the sufficiency of the Court fee paid in an appeal preferred by the judgment-debtor who was denied instalments to pay the decretal amount. In the appeal he paid the fixed Court fee of Rs. 10 under Art. S (iii) (1) (a) of the Act. Narayana Pai, J (as he then was) speaking for the Bench, observed :"the grievance of the appellant arises not in respect of any relief that was or could have been valued while presenting the plaint itself. In the appeal he paid the fixed Court fee of Rs. 10 under Art. S (iii) (1) (a) of the Act. Narayana Pai, J (as he then was) speaking for the Bench, observed :"the grievance of the appellant arises not in respect of any relief that was or could have been valued while presenting the plaint itself. Actually, so far as the principal relief is concerned, the plaintiff is satisfied with the decree as made by the trial Court. In view of these peculiar circumstances, the proper view to take is that the appeal is one in respect of which there is no specific provision made in the Court Fees Act for computation of Court Fee. " ( 6 ) THE same view was reiterated by another Bench of this Court in Mundargi mahaderappa Sons v. Central Bank of India (1973) 2 Myslj. 432. A case similar to the one before me, came up for consideration before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Gyasiram Kanhairam Vaishva v. Brijbhushandas narayandas Vaishya AIR. 1962 MP. 287. In that case also the sufficiency of the Court fee paid in an appeal against the final decree in a suit for redemption where the decretal amount was deposited beyond the time prescribed, came UD for consideration. The Court held that the appeal filed on a fixed court fee of Rs. 20 paid under' S. 7 (iv) and Sch. II of the Court Fees Act, 1870 was sufficient. The Madhya Pradesh High Court followed the Full bench decision of the Nagpur High Court in Sitabai v. Ramachandra raghunah Abhyankar AIR. 1938 Nag. 409,. ( 7 ) THE ratio of these decisions also proceed on a similar line of reasoning adopted by me in the present case. I, therefore, hold that the Court fee paid by the appellant is sufficient. The appeal may be registered. --- *** --- .