S K MOHAMED IBRAHIM Vs. M VEDACHALA MUDALIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition arises from an order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in O. S. No. 57 of 1952 on the file of his court directing a revised valuation of the reliefs prayed for in the plaint and also fixing the basis of value of the reliefs sought. The plaintiffs are the petitioners herein. They are 3 of the heirs of one Khader Hussain Rowther who was carrying on business in partnership under the name and style of Mask and Co. , with respondents 1 and 2. Kliader Hussain died early in 1943. The petitioners stated that they were entitled to have a dissolution of the firm, viz. , Mask, and Co. , or for a declaration that it has been dissolved and also prayed for taking of accounts on that basis. In the plaint the plaintiffs referred to three receipts executed by them in favour of defendants 1 and 2 on a settlement of accounts upto 1943. Written statements were filed and when the matter was taken up for trial, the lower court by its order dated 2-8-1956 held that the receipts had the effect of releasing defendants 1 and 2 from all their obligations and that therefore there should be a prayer for setting aside the receipts. In accordance with the directions of the court the plaintiffs filed I. A. No. 525 of 1956 for amending the plaint. They stated that if for any reason the court were to hold that the receipts constituted release of the plaintiffs' claim to the extent to which they were liable to be construed as releases they should be held as not binding on the plaintiffs and also prayed for setting them aside. They further averred that the receipts were never intended to be releases. The amendment of the plaint was ordered in due course and after the amendment the learned Subordinate Judge took up for hearing the additional issue No. 3, viz. , as to whether the suit wag properly valued. It is a matter for regret that a suit of the year 1952 should still be at the stage of preliminary skirmishes. On the additional issue the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the valuation required revision in two respects : (1) There being three receipts executed by each of the plaintiffs they would form distinct causes Of action and therefore should be valued as distinct subjects, and (2) that under Section 7, clause IV-A of the Court-fees Act, 1870, the proper value of the receipts was the sum mentioned in the receipts together with further interest from 31-3-1949 plus the first defendant's share of the profits. The plaintiffs have filed the above revision petition against the order of the learned Sub-Judge.

(2.) IT is rather difficult to agree with the learned Judge in either of his two conclusions. As stated already the plaintiffs are claiming as heirs of the late khader Hussain Rowther for accounts in the partnership business which their father had with defendants 1 and 2. The receipts which they gave of which that executed by the first plaintiff--Ex. B. 1 is typical, stated that defendants I and 2 and first plaintiff's father were carrying on a business at Panruti under the name and style of Mask and Co. , that Khader Hussain died on 23-1-1943 and that after his death for the purpose of "completing the partnership" defendants 1 and 2 and the first plaintiff and others came to an agreement dated 31-3-1943. It further mentions that in pursuance of this agreement the shares which the heirs of Khader Hussain were entitled to in the amounts due to Khadir Hussain from mask and Co. were determined upto 31-3-J943 and entries were made in the ledger and that a sum of Rs. 20884-12-4 with interest was found due to the first plaintiff. Ex. B. 1 thereafter mentions certain deductions to the aforesaid amount. After making necessary adjustments a sum of Rs. 12394-5-1 was found payable to the first plaintiff which he received before the Sub-Registrar after executing Ex. B. 1. Ex. B. 1 then acknowledged that the first plaintiff had looked into all accounts and accepted the same as correct and stated "according to the copy of the accounts given by you a sum of Rs. 115481-9 upto 31-3-1950 with the usual rate of interest is due to me. From the said company hereafter no amount is due to me. " Exs. B. 2 and B. 3 the receipts given by the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were for lesser amounts but the contents were substantially the same.

(3.) THE receipts no doubt effect a release of the rights of the plaintiffs for amounts due from defendants, 1 and 2. The lower court was, therefore, right in holding that the plaintiffs should set aside the receipts, Exs. B. 1 and B. 3.