DATTATRAYA NAGESH DEODHAR Vs. GANESH RAGUNATH APTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 188 of 1951 in the Court of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, of Poona, for a declaration that the partnership between him and the defendant was dissolved on 29-7-1951 or from the dale determined by the Court, for an account of the partner ship and for a decree for the amount that may be ascertained to be due on taking such accounts and for costs of the suit. The plaintiff valued the claim at Rs. 10,500/- for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, The defendant denied the partnership set up by the plaintiff and denied liability to account. The learned trial Judge passed a decree declaring that the business referred to in the plaint was carried on by the parties to the suit in partnership and each had a half share in the profit and loss in the business thereof. He declared the partnership as dissolved from the date of his order, and appoint ed a Commissioner for taking accounts for determining the amount, if any, due to the plaintiff. Against that decree this appeal has been preferred by the defendant, and the defendant has valued the claim for purposes of courtfee and advocate's fee at Rs. 200/ -. The Office of the Registrar, when the appeal was filed, raised an objection about the adequacy of the court-fee paid on the memo of appeal. The defendant explained that he was entitled to value the claim, in an appeal from a degree for accounts, by virtue of the provisions contained in S. 7 (iv) (f) of the Court-fees Act, at any arbitrary figure he chose and he was not bound in appeal by the valuation made by the plaintiff. The office of the Registrar accepted the contention raised by the defendant and numbered the appeal. At the hearing of the appeal an objection has been raised about the valuation of the appeal for purposes of Court-fee.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, in the trial Court the plaintiff had valued the claim at a consolidated amount of Rs. 10500/- for a declaration and for dissolution of the partnership and for accounts. The reliefs for declaration and for dissolution were however purely incidental to the claim for accounts. Section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court-fees Act, in so far as it is material, provides:

(3.) WE are unable to accept the contention raised by Mr. Lalit. If the subject-matter of any suit has been wrongly valued by the plaintiff, it is open to the defendant to apply to the Court to correct that valuation. If, however, the defendant does not raise a contention in the trial Court that the valuation made by the plaintiff is exaggerated and chooses to join issue on the merits of the case, it will not, in our judgment, be open to him after a decree is passed against him to contend that the valuation made by the plaintiff was exaggerated. In. any event, in cur judgment, once the valuation of the subject-matter is fixed by the plaintiff by valuing the claim for purposes of court-fee in the manner permitted to him by the legislature, that valuation of the subject-matter must in the absence of any provision justifying a departure enure for the en tire proceeding in the suit and if the defendant desires to challenge the whole decree passed by the trial Court, the defendant must accept that valuation.