S PARAMESWARAN Vs. S SARVESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition at the instance of the plaintiff against the order of the lower court directing the petitioner to pay the court fee on Rs. 32,000 less the court fee already paid on the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership from 1948 upto the date of the suit and to have the assets realised including therein the good-will, plant and machinery which according to him were wrongfully taken over by the defendants. In paragraph 22 of the plaint it was stated that the plaintiff estimated his share of the assets payable to him in the sum of Rs 8000. A court fee of Rs. 600 was paid under S. 36(1) of the Court-fees Act of 1955. There was also an undertaking to pay an additional court-fee after the ascertainment of the amount due by him. The first defendant contested the correctness of the valuation of the plaint. Issue 15 was raised as to the proper court-fee payable on the plaint. The learned Assistant City Civil Judge held that the proper value on the basis of a plaint would be a sum of Rs. 32,000 and required the plaintiff to pay the additional court-fee thereon. The plaintiff has filed this civil revision petition challenging the correctness of the order requiring an additional court-fee. The finding of the learned Judge was that the plaintiff's share in the partnership business would come to Rs. 32000. This was based on the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the plaint. The case of the plaintiff was that although he was a partner, he was practically excluded from taking part in the affairs of the firm, and that on 22-7-1954, one of the defendants acting at the instance of the others sent a notice of dissolution of the firm. In paragraph 14 of the plaint the plaintiff gave instances of certain transactions followed by some adjustments in the accounts by the defendants. It is necessary to refer to that paragraph for the purpose of appreciating the points in dispute in the present case. Paragraph 14 of the plaint runs as follows:

(3.) In that paragraph three instances of manipulations of accounts and improper dealing with the partnership property are given. Such instances do not by themselves show what exactly would be the share of the plaintiff f an account were to be taken from 1948 to the date of the suit. It may be that even if the plaintiff's case were to be accepted in regard t the three instalments set out in paragraph 14, the plaintiff might not get more than Rs. 8000, the amount estimated by him in the plaint. The amount due to the plaintiff could be ascertained only after the entire accounts were taken. The only other averment in the plaint in regard to the valuation of the relief as to accounting is contained in paragraph 22 of the plaint. That gives the value of the relief as to accounting in a sum of Rs. 8000. There is nothing in the other portions of the plaint, which would entitle the court to depart from that valuation. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Assistant City Civil Judge that the real estimate of the relief which the plaintiff seeks should be Rs. 32,000 cannot be accepted.