Skip to content


Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. Mohan Lal Singhania - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract; Civil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1949All359
AppellantMukhtar Ahmad
RespondentMohan Lal Singhania
Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under..........(b), court-fees act, as amended in its application to this province. that section provides for suit for accounts and lays down that such suit shall be valued according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint.3. the second proviso of this sub-section runs as follows:provided further, that in suits falling under clause (b), such amount shall be the approximate sum due to the plaintiff and the said sum shall form the basis for calculating or determining the valuation of an appeal from a preliminary decree passed in the suit.now, according to the allegations in the plaint nothing would be due to the plaintiff because the liabilities of the partnership exceed its assets. hence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has undervalued his suit. in fact the case is one.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Bind Basni Prasad, J.

1. The plaintiff opposite party brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif, Gorakhpur, in which he claimed the following reliefs: (a) that a decree for the dissolution of the partnership business of the United Talkies, Mohalla Purdilpore, Golghar, Gorakhpur, be granted and accounts of the said partnership business be passed against the defendants who may be ordered to render the said accounts, (b) that any other relief to which the plaintiff may be considered to be entitled may also be given to the plaintiff, (c) the plaintiff be awarded costs of the suit. The lower Court has held that the present value of the assets of this partnership is about Rs. 50,000. It has further held that the account books show that the liabilities of the firm are to the extent of about Rs. 56,000. It may be noted here that most of these debts were challenged by the defendants.

2. The plaintiff valued the suit for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 500. The defendant contended that the valuation should be on the basis of the value of the assets of the firm. This contention of the defendant was repelled by the learned Munsif and he held that the suit had been properly valued by the plain-tiff and was within his jurisdiction. It was common ground of the parties in the Court below that the suit fell under Section 7 (iv) (b), Court-fees Act, as amended in its application to this province. That section provides for suit for accounts and lays down that such suit shall be valued according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint.

3. The second proviso of this sub-section runs as follows:

Provided further, that in suits falling under Clause (b), such amount shall be the approximate sum due to the plaintiff and the said sum shall form the basis for calculating or determining the valuation of an appeal from a preliminary decree passed in the suit.

Now, according to the allegations in the plaint nothing would be due to the plaintiff because the liabilities of the partnership exceed its assets. Hence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has undervalued his suit. In fact the case is one where the relief can be valued only at the discretion of the plaintiff. Section 48, Partnership Act, provides the mode of settlement of accounts between the partners. It runs as follows:

In settling the accounts of a firm after dissolution the following rules shall subject to agreement by the partners, be observed: (a) Losses, including deficiencies of capital, shall be paid first out of profits, next out of capital, and, lastly, if necessary, by the partners individually in the proportions in which they were entitled 10 entitled profits, (b) the assets of the firm, including any suns contributed by the partners to make up deficiencies of capital, shall be applied in the following manner and order: (i) in paying the debts of the firm to third parties, (ii) in paying to each partner rateably what is duo to him from the firm for advance as distinguished from capital, (iii) in paying to each partner rateably what is due to him on account of capital, and (iv) the residue, if any, shall be divided among the partners in the proportions in which they were entitled to share profits.

It will be seen that the assets of a partnership are divided between the partners only after the debts of the firm have been liquidated. It, would, therefore, be unreasonable to value the suit in such circumstances on the assets of the firm. As a matter of fact, the real object of the suit is to release the parties from the contractual obligations arising out of the partnership and to settle the account inter se. Really neither party gets any decree for money. It is a suit for the dissolution of the partnership and settlement of account between them. I agree with the lower Court that the suit was properly valued both for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.


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