RAGHO PRASAD Vs. B PRATAP NARAIN AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE following question has been referred for opinion to this Bench: "Whether the court-fee on the memorandum of appeal against the final decree in a suit for accounting is to be paid under Section 7 (iv) (b) or under Section 7 (i) of the U. P. Court-fees Act ?"

(2.) THE question has been referred at the instance of a Division Bench which was of the opinion that there was conflict between the decision of a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court in Ghalib Rasool v. Mangu Lal, AIR 1949 All 382 (FB) and the decision of a Full Bench of five Judges of this Court in Asharfi Lal v. Firm Thakur Prasad Kishori Lal, AIR 1970 All 197 (FB).

(3.) IN a preliminary decree directing the taking of accounts, the court either appoints a Commissioner to take the accounts or directs the production of the necessary documents before itself. After taking accounts, the Commissioner or the Court ascertains the amount due to the plaintiff from the defendant or due to the defendant from the plaintiff. If the accounts have been taken by a Commissioner, the parties are entitled to file objections to his report and after considering the objections, the court ascertains the amount due to one party or the other. Thereafter the court passes a final decree for the amount so ascertained in favour of the party who is found entitled to the amount. At this stage, Section 11 of the Court Fees Act comes into operation. This section makes provisions for the recovery of ad valorem court-fees on the amount decreed in excess of the amount claimed in the plaint. By virtue of Section 11, the plaintiff has to pay ad valorem court-fees on the entire amount decreed in the suit after making allowance for the amount of court-fees already paid on the plaint. When an appeal is preferred against such a final decree, what is the valuation which the appellant is required to put on the appeal for purposes of payment of court-fees? That is the question we are really required to answer.