ORDER A. Hariprasad, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the defendants against the concurrent findings in a suit for recovery of possession of property with future mesne profits. It is seen that before the lower Appellate Court, the present appellants paid court - fee under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959, alongwith court - fee for the amount quantified as future mesne profits. The Registry raised an objection that the appellants have to pay court - fee as shown in the decree of the lower Appellate Court by virtue of S.52 of the Act. Learned counsel, relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ratnamma v. Karthiyani Pillai, 1974 KHC 23, contended that merely for the reason that mistakenly excessive court - fee had been paid before the First Appellate Court, he need not pay court - fee in the second appeal, when the law permits him to pay the same court - fee paid by the plaintiff in the original suit, which is said to be the proper court - fee in the suit. Paragraph 10 in the decision reads as follows: "The appellant has the right to choose the subject - matter of the appeal. At times this selection may result in the appeal being dismissed as incompetent but if the appeal is sustainable, be cannot be compelled to include in the subject - matter of the appeal memorandum something which he does not want to become part of the subject - matter of the appeal. The case of future interest stands in a similar footing to that of future mesne profits; both are in a sense, at the discretion of the Court for, the Trial Court can always decline to go into the question of future mesne profits and refer the matter to a fresh suit and in the case of interest there is the larger discretion to either grant it or refuse it. But though there is this difference in the extent of the discretion both mesne profits and future interest depend on the existence of another right; to recover the property, in the case of mesne profits, in the wrongful possession of the defendant, and in the case of interest in the right to recover money from the defendant which the defendant owed to the plaintiff. It is impossible to conceive of a liability for mesne profits without an antecedent obligation to surrender a property of another and a right to an interest or an obligation to pay interest without a right to claim the principal amount. The liability to mesne profits or future interest is so dependent on the right to the property or the right to the money that the right cannot exist without the right to recover property or to recover money. When the defendant is uninterested in the quantum of the mesne profits decreed and therefore does not challenge the quantum, and uninterested in challenging the obligation to pay the mesne profits independent of and unconnected with the right to recover the properties, we conceive that he need not pay court - fee separately on the mesne profits. The subject - matter in this appeal relates to the obligation to surrender the property. The appellant has asserted that he has no such obligation. If he has no such obligation the question of mesne profits will not arise as it springs from that obligation and entirely dependent on it." Considering the facts and circumstances, I find that the objection raised by the Registry is not sustainable. The appellants have paid requisite court - fee. The Registry shall number the file, if it is otherwise in order.