K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN a suit brought by the first respondent against the petitioner and respondent no. 13 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000 a decree has been passed against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. In the said suit, the petitioner and the 2nd respondent took up a plea that they being debtors within the meaning of the Karnataka Debt llelief Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the debt in question stood discharged. On the basis of the plea raised by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the trial Court raised! Issue No. 3 as to whether the petitioner and respondent No. 2 are debtors as defined under the act. The trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are rot debtors within the meaning of the Act Accordingly the trial Court has decreed the suit. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 have filed a RA No, 51/59 in the Court of the civil Judge, Madhugiri, against the aforesaid decree passed by the trial court. The appeal has been valued by them at less than Rs. 5,000 under sec- 47 read with Sec, 49 of the Karnataka court fees and Suits Valuation act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court Fees Act'), on the ground that the appellants are aggrieved by the finding recorded by the trial Court on Issue No. 3 only and have paid the court fees of Rs. 20 only on the memorandum of appeal. ( 2 ) THE lower Appellate Court has directed the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to pay the deficient court fee so as to make up the Court fee payable on the memorandum of appeal as was paid on the plaint in the trial Court and has further ordered the appellants to file a fresh valuation slip as per S. 49 of the Act. It is this order that has been challenged in this civil revision petition. ( 3 ) 3ri L. Subramanya, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are not disputing the claim of the plantiff-1st respondent and the subject matter of the appeal is confined to the correctness of the finding recorded on issue no. ( 3 ) 3ri L. Subramanya, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are not disputing the claim of the plantiff-1st respondent and the subject matter of the appeal is confined to the correctness of the finding recorded on issue no. 3 as to whether the petitioner and the second respondent are debtors within the meaning of the Act; therefore, they are entitled to value the appeal quite apart from the valuation wade in the suit and as such, the order passed by the Court below directing them to pay the deficit court fee is not in accordance with the provisions contained under Sec. 49 read with Expl- (1) and (4) of the act. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. ( 4 ) THE decree passed by the trial court is for recovery of a certain sum against the appellents (petitioner and respondent No- 2 in this revision petition ). The fact that the appellants are not challenging the finding relating to the merits of the claim of the plaintiff in the suit, will not make any difference as far as the question of payment of court fee is concerned as long as the appellants want to get rid of the entire decree passed by the trial Court. It is their case that the decree passed by the trial Court should be set aside on the ground that they are debtors within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, the contention that the appeal is confined to only with regard to the correctness of the finding recorded on issue No. 3 by the trial Court will not in any way enable the appellants to value the appeal for a lesser sum as long as they want to get rid of the entire decree and in such a situation, it is not open for the appellants to make their own valuation of the appeal and pay the Court fee thereon as has been done by the appellants. It is not a case in which the relief relating to the correctness of the finding recorded on Issue No. 3 can be separated from the decree passed by the trial Court. If the finding on Issue No. 3 is to be set aside, the entire decree will have to be set aside. It is not a case in which the relief relating to the correctness of the finding recorded on Issue No. 3 can be separated from the decree passed by the trial Court. If the finding on Issue No. 3 is to be set aside, the entire decree will have to be set aside. Therefore, the subject matter cf the appeal is the entire decree as such it cannot be said that the appeal is confined to a finding recorded on Issue No. 3. ( 5 ) AS already pointed out, the appellants have valued the appeal under Sec 47 read with Sec. 49 of the court Fees Act, and in this revision petition, the learned Counsel placed reliance on Explanation (1) and (4) of Sec. 49 of the Court Fees Act. S. 47 of the Court Fees Act reads as follows:"suits not otherwise provided for:- in suits not otherwise provided for fee shall be payable at the following rates.- (i) In a Revenue Court. Rupees Fifteen (ii) In any Civil Court. Rupees twenty if the value of the subject matter is Rs. 5000/- or less; rupees one hundred if the value is above rs. 5000/- but below Rs. 10,000/-; and rupees two hundred if the value is Rs. 10,000 and above. "this Sec. is not at all applicable, to the present case. This is not a suit falling within, the category of not otherwise provided for under the Court Fees Act. The present suit is one for recovery of money which is covered by S. 21 read with Sch. I Art. (1) of the Court fees Act. Similarly, Explanation (1) to s. 49 which reads as follows, does not help the appellants: ' Whether the appeal is against the refusal of a relief or against the grant of the relief, the fee payable in the appeal shall be the same as the fee that would, be payable on the relief in the Court of first instance. " the aforesaid explanation (1) to S. 49 makes it clear that the appellants in the instant case are required to pay the same court fee on the memorandum of appeal as was paid on the relief claimed in the suit. The appellants in the instant case have preferred an appeal against the decree passed for recovery of certain sum. " the aforesaid explanation (1) to S. 49 makes it clear that the appellants in the instant case are required to pay the same court fee on the memorandum of appeal as was paid on the relief claimed in the suit. The appellants in the instant case have preferred an appeal against the decree passed for recovery of certain sum. Therefore, the Court fee payable in the appeal shall be the same as the fee that was paid on the plaint in the Court of First instance. The Expln. (4) to S. 49 also is not of any assistance to the appellants. The said Explanation to Sec. 49 reads as follows:"where the relief prayed for in the appeal is different from the reliel prayed for or refused in the court of 1st instance, the fee payable in the appeal shall be the fee that would be payable in the court of first instance on the relief prayed for in the appeal. "in the instant case, the relief prayed for in the appeal is not different from the reliet prayed for in the court of first instance. The fact that the appellants have confined their contentions in the appeal only in respect of the finding recorded on Issue No. 3, will not make any difference for the purpose of computation of the Court fee as long as the finding on Issue No. 3 cannot at all be separated and valued separately inasmuch, as the reversal of the finding on Issue No. 3 would result in the reversal of the entire decree. Therefore, the relief prayed for in the appeal cannot be said to be different from the relief prayed for in the court of first instance. As such, it is not at all open for the appellants to value the appeal in the manner different from the one provided under Explanation (1) of Sec. 49 of the Court Fees Act. Therefore, the appellants are required to pay the Court Fees on the memorandum of appeal that would be payable in the court of first instance on the subject matter of the appeal. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this court reported in Shivasangappa v. Ramachandra (1968) 2 Kar. L. J. 237. The said decision is of no assistance to the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this court reported in Shivasangappa v. Ramachandra (1968) 2 Kar. L. J. 237. The said decision is of no assistance to the petitioner. On the contrary, it makes it clear that the appellants in the instant case are required to pay the Court fee on the memorandum of appeal as was paid in the Court of first instance. ( 7 ) HENCE, I do not find any substance in this revision petition. It is accordingly rejected. However, the appellants are granted time till 1st january 1980 for payment of the deficit court fee on the memorandum of appeal filed in the court of the Civil judge at Madhugiri. --- *** ---