Skip to content


Khushalchand Mulchand and ors. Vs. Nagindas Motichand and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR12Bom675
AppellantKhushalchand Mulchand and ors.
RespondentNagindas Motichand and anr.
Excerpt:
valuation of suit for purposes of jurisdiction - suit for account and for balance that may be found due--appeal--act xiv of 1869, sections 8 and 26. - .....seeks the recovery of money, the plaint must state the precise amount so far as the case admits, while in a suit for the amount which will be found due on taking unsettled accounts, the plaint need only state approximately the amount sued for. we think that as in the former instance the precise amount, so in the latter the approximate amount stated in the plaint must be taken to be the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. as in the present case, the approximate amount of the claim, as stated in the plaint, is rs. 510, we must take that to be the value of the subject-matter of the suit; and the appeal lies, under sections 8 and 26 of act xiv of 1869, not to the high court, but to the district court. we, therefore, return the memorandum of appeal.....
Judgment:

Birdwood, J.

1. In this suit the plaintiffs prayed that accounts might be taken of all business done by the defendants on their behalf from 1854-55 to 1866-67, and that whatever was found due, might be decreed with interest.

2. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit, and the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court; and the question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The plaintiffs first valued the relief sought by them at Rs. 130. They afterwards raised this valuation to Rs. 510, to prevent the suit from being treated as one cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. Under Act VII of 1870, Section 7, Clause iv (f), a plaintiff can, in a suit for accounts value the relief he seeks at any amount he chooses; and he pays court-fees only on such amount: see Govandas Kasandas v. Dayabhai Savaichand I.L.R., 9 Bom., 22 . It is argued, however, that such a valuation is a valuation only for the purposes of court-fees and not a valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction. Of course, valuations for both these purposes are not necessarily identical (Manohar Ganesh v. Bawa Ramcharandas I.L.R., 2 Bom., 219 ; and where they differ, both valuations can be stated in the plaint. In the present case, however, the plaint contains but one valuation. Under Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure (XIV of 1882), if a plaintiff seeks the recovery of money, the plaint must state the precise amount so far as the case admits, while in a suit for the amount which will be found due on taking unsettled accounts, the plaint need only state approximately the amount sued for. We think that as in the former instance the precise amount, so in the latter the approximate amount stated in the plaint must be taken to be the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction. As in the present case, the approximate amount of the claim, as stated in the plaint, is Rs. 510, we must take that to be the value of the subject-matter of the suit; and the appeal lies, under Sections 8 and 26 of Act XIV of 1869, not to the High Court, but to the District Court. We, therefore, return the memorandum of appeal with its accompaniments to the appellant, in order that he may, if so advised, present it to a proper Court. We make no order as to costs.

3. Memorandum of appeal returned for presentation to the proper Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //