Judgment :- 1. The Taxing Officer has objected to the correctness of the court-fee paid by the appellants. The objection is placed before the, Bench. Defendants 4, 5, 8 and 10 in a suit for partition and redemption are the appellants. The plaintiff is the owner of 5/6th share in the equity of redemption. The remaining 1/5th share is with the contesting defendants. As per the mortgage deed, the mortgagor has to pay, in addition to profits, an amount of Rs. 1,200/- per annum as'Ubhayabakki'. The main contest in the suit is that the suit transaction is a kanom kushikanom tenure and not a mortgage. This plea was referred to the concerned Land Tribunal. A finding in favour of the plaintiff and against the contesting defendants was returned by the Tribunal. The trial Court passed a decree for redemption on payment of proportionate mortgage amount with'Ubhayabakki'. The total sum payable was held to be Rs. 61,373.90. The plaintiff had paid court-fee only on a portion of the mortgage amount. There was a direction in the decree that the plaintiff should pay deficit court-fee of Rs. 4647/- on the above sum. This was paid by the plaintiff. The appellants valued the appeal for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction as follows: 2. The objection by the Taxing Officer is that the appellants should pay court-fee not only on the proportionate mortgage amount but also on the sum of Rs. 46,465.60 being the amount decreed to the mortgagee by way of arrears of 'Ubhayabakki' The appellants' case is that no court-fee need be paid on this amount because it is an amount found payable ancillary to the relief of redemption. 3. Counsel for the appellants submits before us that in a suit for redemption court-fee need be paid only on the amount due on the mortgage and not on the reliefs claimed incidental to the relief of redemption. Additional court-fee can be insisted upon only when in addition to the relief of redemption, the plaintiff seeks reliefs on independent causes of action. In this case, the 'Ubhayabakki' decreed is an amount that flows from the mortgage and is a necessary attendant in the decree for redemption. What is more, he submits that he does not dispute the award of that amount in appeal. In this case, the 'Ubhayabakki' decreed is an amount that flows from the mortgage and is a necessary attendant in the decree for redemption. What is more, he submits that he does not dispute the award of that amount in appeal. His appeal is mainly directed against the finding that the suit transaction is redeemable mortgage and not a lease coming within the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 4. Court-fee in a suit for redemption was originally governed by S.7 (ix) of the Court-fees Act 1870. Nor it is governed by S.33 (8) of the Kerala Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. We will read the sections for a better appreciation of the contentions before us. S.7 (ix) reads: "(ix) 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 absolute mortgage; according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage" S. 33 (8) of the Kerala Act reads as follows: "(8) In a suit against a mortgagee for redemption 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 is higher". It will be seen that S.7 (ix) of the Central Act extracted above uses the expression "according to the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage". This expression makes it obligatory on the plaintiff, who seeks redemption of a mortgage, to pay court-fee on the mortgage amount originally secured irrespective of the fact that by subsequent transactions the integrity of the mortgage had been destroyed or the mortgaged property itself had been diminished in value. Those words have now been substituted by the words "on the amount due on the mortgage as stated in the plaint". The rigidity of the expression in the Central Act has been mellowed by the use of the expression on the amount due on the mortgage'. This means that the plaintiff is at liberty to pay court-fee on such amount as is found due when traction for redemption is initiated. The rigidity of the expression in the Central Act has been mellowed by the use of the expression on the amount due on the mortgage'. This means that the plaintiff is at liberty to pay court-fee on such amount as is found due when traction for redemption is initiated. In other words, if the mortgage security has been broken up by subsequent dealings or its value diminished, the plaintiff need pay court-fee only on the amount payable when the suit is filed, subject to the condition that in no case shall such amount be less than 1/4th of the principal amount. The use of the words "amount due on the mortgage" in the first part and the "principal amount secured" in the latter part of the section makes the object of the section-blear. The second proviso to S.33 (8) also clarifies this position. The second proviso reads as follows: "Provided further that, in the case of a usufructuary or anomalous mortgage; if the plaintiff prays for redemption as well as for accounts of surplus profits, fee shall be levied separately on the relief for accounts as in a suit for accounts." This shows that additional court-fee has to be paid when redemption as well as surplus profits are prayed for. Thus in all suits where ancillary reliefs or reliefs flowing out of a suit for redemption are. prayed, court-fee need be paid only on the amount due on the mortgage and not for such reliefs. S.58 of the Transfer of Property Act speaks of mortgage money which is the principal money and interest secured under the mortgage deed. It is this amount that S.33(8) speaks of. In a suit for redemption, there might be claims and counter-claims to be settled under various clauses of the mortgage deed. These claims and counter-claims between the mortgagor and the mortgagee inter se flow from the mortgage deed and it is not necessary to pay court-fee on such claims Unless it be that they come either within the second proviso to S.33(8) or are claims on an independent cause of action. This question came up for consideration both under the Central Act and the Kerala. Act in a few decisions which were brought to our notice, to which we shall briefly advert. 5. In Parvathi v. Makkam Amma (AIR. This question came up for consideration both under the Central Act and the Kerala. Act in a few decisions which were brought to our notice, to which we shall briefly advert. 5. In Parvathi v. Makkam Amma (AIR. 1951 Madras 187), a Full Bench of the Madras High Court was considering the scope of S.7(ix) of the Central Act, in a suit for redemption of a kanom with arrears of rent. An objection was taken that court-fee was payable on the amount of arrears of rent as well. The Full Bench held: "It follows, therefore, that a suit for redemption of a Malabar Kanom, like any other suit for redemption of a possessory mortgage, can be valued under S.7 (ix) of the Court Fees Act even though the plaintiff incorporates in his plaint a prayer for the taking of accounts and the payment of arrears of rent due from the kanomdar. The arrears of rent would have to be applied in reduction of the kanom amount and the value of improvements payable to the kanomdar and the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree only for such balance as might be found payable to him on taking the account." Accordingly, the court set aside the order of the Court below demanding additional court-fee on arrears of rent claimed by the plaintiff. That is a reverse case from the case we have here. Here, instead of the mortgagor claiming arrears of rent, what is decreed in favour of the mortgagee is the arrears of 'Ubhayabakki '. No distinction can be made between these two claims. We respectfully agree with the dictum laid down by the Full Bench that in a suit for redemption including the prayer for arrears of rent, court-fee on arrears of rent need not be paid and court-fee paid on the mortgage amount would be sufficient. 6. In Krishna Kurup v. Madhavan Namboodiri (1968 KLT. 766), a Division Bench of this Court was considering the scope of S.33(8) of the Kerala Court-Fees Act. In that case, the mortgagees acquired a share in the equity of redemption. Court-fee was paid by the mortgagor only on the proportionate amount outstanding and an objection was taken that court-fee had to be paid on the original mortgage amount. This Court repelling that contention observed: "When the mortgagees acquired a share in the equity of redemption, the mortgage is pro tanto extinguished. Court-fee was paid by the mortgagor only on the proportionate amount outstanding and an objection was taken that court-fee had to be paid on the original mortgage amount. This Court repelling that contention observed: "When the mortgagees acquired a share in the equity of redemption, the mortgage is pro tanto extinguished. If so, there is an extinguishment of the mortgage over the rest of the properties comprised in the original mortgage deed. The expression "principal amount secured under the mortgage" in S.33(8) can mean only the mortgage" subsisting on the date of the institution of the suit in respect of the plaint schedule property." So holding, it was observed that the court-fee paid on the balance amount outstanding is sufficient. The distinction between the Central Act and the Kerala Act was noted by the Bench and it was after considering both the sections that the above conclusion was arrived at. 7. In P. Sambhu Namboodiri v. Gopalan Nair and another (1970 KLR.16), Krishna Iyer, J., as he then was had to consider a plea that in a suit for redemption, along with a prayer for the value of improvements, court-fee had to be paid oh the value of improvements to be awarded. The learned judge repelled the contention after considering the scope of S.33(8) and held: "All reliefs flowing out or or are an integral part of the right of redemption can be claimed without payment of separate court-fee. Under S.63 of the Transfer of Property Act, when there is an accession to the mortgaged property, provision is made regarding the payment of its value by the mortgagor at the time of redemption, but such money cannot be treated, for purposes of S.39(8) of the Kerala Court Fees Act, as part of the amount due on the mortgage." and held that the court-fee paid by the plaintiff on the mortgage amount was sufficient and the plea that court-fee has to be paid on the value of improvements was not proper. 8. Moidu J, in Sukumaran Nair v. Raghavan Nair (1970 KLT. 929) was dealing with an appeal against the decree for redemption and value of improvements, wherein enhanced value of improvements was claimed. An objection was taken that court-fee had to be paid on the enhanced value of improvements claimed. 8. Moidu J, in Sukumaran Nair v. Raghavan Nair (1970 KLT. 929) was dealing with an appeal against the decree for redemption and value of improvements, wherein enhanced value of improvements was claimed. An objection was taken that court-fee had to be paid on the enhanced value of improvements claimed. The learned judge did not accept this plea but held that court-fee need be paid only on the amount due on the mortgage. We respectfully agree with the three decisions mentioned above. In our opinion, court-fee paid on the mortgage amount by the appellants is sufficient. 9. The appellants' counsel had a case regarding court-fee paid on damages. That is not covered by the reference before us and we do not express any opinion on it. The objection taken by the Taxing Officer cannot be sustained. The office will number the appeal and proceed.A