Skip to content


Sooratsingh Mathuraprasad Vs. Deepchand Ramlal JaIn and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 237 of 1964
Judge
Reported inAIR1966MP247
ActsCourt-fees Act, 1870 - Sections 7
AppellantSooratsingh Mathuraprasad
RespondentDeepchand Ramlal JaIn and anr.
Appellant AdvocateK.N. Agarwal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.L. Halve, Adv. for Non-Applicant No. 1
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredKaizullah Khan v. Mauladad Khan
Excerpt:
.....plaint. so also, a defendant against whom a decree for rendition of account has been passed and who accepted without protest the valuation put by the plaintiff or who failed to satisfy the trial court about the high valuation of the suit by the plaintiff, cannot in appeal he permitted to turn round and say that the valuation of the relief to the plaintiff is lower than that stated by him in the plaint......in an appeal filed by him in the court of the additional district judge sagar attainst a final decree passed by the civil judge class ii, sagar. in a suit filed by the petitioner for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts making the applicant liable for payment of rs 4.472.50 np. to the defendant-opponent deepchand.2. the petitioner valued his suit at rs. 4,500 for the purpose of court-lees, and asked for rendering of accounts and a decree for that amount with the statement that if more than rs. 4,500 were found due from the defendants, he would pay an additional court-fee. the defendant no. 1 asked for a decree in his own favour. after taking of accounts no sum was found due to the plaintiff on the other hand, it was found that a sum of rs. 4,472.50 np. was due from.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P.V. Dixit, C.J.

1. The question raised in this revision petition is about the court-fees payable by the plaintiff-applicant in an appeal filed by him in the Court of the Additional District Judge Sagar attainst a final decree passed by the Civil Judge Class II, Sagar. in a suit filed by the petitioner for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts making the applicant liable for payment of Rs 4.472.50 nP. to the defendant-opponent Deepchand.

2. The petitioner valued his suit at Rs. 4,500 for the purpose of court-lees, and asked for rendering of accounts and a decree for that amount with the statement that if more than Rs. 4,500 were found due from the defendants, he would pay an additional court-fee. The defendant No. 1 asked for a decree in his own favour. After taking of accounts no sum was found due to the plaintiff On the other hand, it was found that a sum of Rs. 4,472.50 nP. was due from him to the defendant No 1. In the appeal which he filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sagar, the plaintiff claimed the relief of setting aside the decree for Rs. 4,472.50 nP. passed against him and prayed for a decree in his favour for such amount as might be found due to him. He valued the appeal at Rs. 5,000. The learned Additional District Judge took the view that court-fee payable in the appeal filed by the petitioner was ad valorem on the total sum of Rs. 4,500 and Rs 4,472 50 nP and accordingly passed an order directing the petitioner to pay the deficit court-fee.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I have reached the conclusion that the order of the learned Additional District Judge cannot be sustained The court-fee payable on the plaint in a suit for accounts or on memorandum of appeal arising out of such suit is, as provided in Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 'according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal.' The words of Section 7(iv)(f) are plain and they permit the plaintiff or the appellant to put his own valuation No doubt. the plaintiff of the appellant cannot place any arbitrary valuation on the plaint of the memorandum of appeal. The valuation must he a reasonable one; and when a question is raised as to the true valuation, it is open to the Court to determine whether the valuation put by the plaintiff or the appellant is a reasonable one An unsuccessful plain till in a suit for rendition of accounts, when appealing for a decree, cannot on general principle be allowed to value the relief--identical with that sought in the plaint prayed for in appeal at a figure lower than which he himself had stilled in the plaint.

So also, a defendant against whom a decree for rendition of account has been passed and who accepted without protest the valuation put by the plaintiff or who failed to satisfy the trial Court about the high valuation of the suit by the plaintiff, cannot in appeal he permitted to turn round and say that the valuation of the relief to the plaintiff is lower than that stated by him in the plaint. The petitioner was therefore, entitled to put his own valuation on the memorandum of appeal and the valuation of Rs. 5.000 put by him in the appeal cannot be said to be arbitrary of unreasonable when in the trial Court the relief sought by him was valued in the plaint at Rs. 4,500 That in an appeal arising out of a suit for accounts the appellant is entitled to put his own valuation on the memorandum of appeal is clear from the decision of the Privy Council in Kaizullah Khan v. Mauladad Khan AIR 1929 PC 147. That decision also shows that the learned Additional District Judge was not right in demanding from the petitioner ad valorem court-fee on the amount of Rs. 4,472.50 nP. decreed against him and also on the amount of Rs. 4.500 at which be valued the relief sought in the plaint

4. The present cast is indistinguishable even on facts from Faizullah's case. AIR 1929 PC 147. (supra). In that case, the plaintiffs valued the suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts at Rs. 3.000 claiming a decree for Rs. 3,000 The plaintiffs' claim for a decree for Rs. 3.000 was disallowed and it was held that Rs. 19,991 were due from them to the defendant. Accordingly a final decree was passed for the payment of Rs. 19,991 to the defendant. The plaintiffs then appealed putting ad valorem court-fee on Rs. 19,991 The Privy Council held that the court-fee paid on Rs. 19,991 was both for the purpose of reversing the decree against the plaintiffs and for granting a decree in their own favour and that there was no under-valuation. The following observations made by the Privy Council in Faizullah's case AIR 1929 PC 147 (supra) indicate that their Lordships of the Privy Council were, on the other hand, inclined to think that the court-fee paid was largely in excess of the true sum of relief on a sound valuation.

' It is plain that any substantial inversion of liability under the respective decrees would result in all likelihood in the sums awarded on appeal to both parties being much within Rs. 19,000 awarded to one The court-fee due upon the appeal valued as an entirely as thus stated was Rs. 975, and that was duly paid. Their Lordships find no reason for treating that payment either as upon an under value or a split-value. Their Lordships think, with much respect to the Judicial Commissioner, that it was a mistake to treat the payment of Rs. 975 as a fee made only on the amount of the decree passed against the appellants That amount, as already stated, may be not in full but largely in excess of the true sum of relief at which a sound valuation could in the present circumstances be said to reach and it covered the appeal as a whole, including that sum on the one hand and a much smaller figure of Rs. 3,000 on the other.'

The Privy Council decision further lays down that in an appeal arising out of a suit for accounts the appellant is entitled to put his own valuation on the memorandum of appeal. That decision is a direct authority for the proposition that if in a suit for accounts a final decree dismissing the claim in its entirely and declaring the plaintiff liable for certain sum to the defendant is passed and the plaintiff then appeals from the decree claiming a reversal of the decree against him and asking for a decree in his own favour for such amount as might be found due to him then court-fee computed according to the amount of the decree passed against the plaintiff is sufficient to cover both the reliefs. In the present case, the court-fee that was paid by the applicant in the appeal filed by him was ad valorem on Rs. 5,000, that is on an amount exceeding the amount of the decree for Rs. 4.472.50 nP passed against him. There was thus, according to the decision of the Privy Council, no under-valuation of the appeal, and the petitioner was not required to pay any separate court-fee for the relief of a decree in his favour for such amount as might be found due claimed by him in the appeal.

5. For these reasons, this petition is allowed and the order dated 13th March 1964 of the Additional District Judge of Sagar demanding court-fee on a total sum of Rs. 8972.50 nP. is set aside. The petitioner shall have costs of this application. Counsel's fee is fixed ill Rs. 50


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