Raghunath Das vs Jhari Singh

This appeal was filed as an appeal from an order of remand. Order XLIII, rule 1(v)is referred to. The respondents object that the appeal is not an appeal from an order of remand but from an appellate decree and must bear Court-fee accordingly. On looking into the record we find the first Court dismissed the suit on various grounds. The plaintiff appealed and the District Judge held that plaintiff was entitled to the land which he claimed, that the suit was within limitation and that, therefore, he was entitled to get possession, and he concluded his order in these words.--

The case must go back to the lower Court for determining whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits and if so what, and whether the plaintiff has any cause of action against defendant No. 6. After determining these remaining issues the lower Court will pass a decree accordingly. The costs of the appeal are to be paid by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2.

It is quite clear that the District Judge reversed the decree of the first Court and should have passed a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff and sent the case to the Court below for enquiry as to mesne profits. We must consider this as a decree for possession in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendants'' appeal against it must be considered as an appeal against an appellate decree. The appeal has been filed on a two rupee Court-fee stamp. The Court-fee paid is obviously deficient. Let the record be sent into the office at once in order that a report may be made as to the amount of Court fee payable on the appeal. Let the case be entered on the list for to-morrow and if the Court-fee is paid it will be heard.