SATYANARAYAN Vs. BODDU VEERASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is one under section 33 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1956). The defendant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. It is alleged in the plaint that the first defendant and three others were carrying on business as sand-contractors under the name and style of ' The Deccan Sand Syndicate ' between the years 1955 and 1957 in partnership. On 8th July, 1955, the first defendant admitted the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 as sub-partners in his four annas share in ' The Deccan Sand Syndicate', this sub-partnership being styled as ' Satyanarayan & Co.', each partner having an equal share in the profit and loss. The plaintiff contributed a sum of I.G. Rs. 3,014-4-6 from time to time towards the latter partnership. It is alleged that, in December, 1957, the main partnership ' The Deccan Sand Syndicate ' was dissolved. In the suit, the plaintiff prayed that a preliminary decree be passed directing the first defendant to render accounts of the suit partnership already dissolved and declaring the shares of the plaintiff and defendants i to 4 as being equal in profit and loss and for other consequential reliefs. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff tentatively values the relief for accounts at Rs. 500 and a Court-fee of Rs. 56-4-0 was paid under section 33 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. It is also stated in that paragraph that the plaintiff undertakes to pay the deficit Court-fee, if any, after the amount due to his share is ascertained. The trial of the case was taken up and the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 5. During the course of his evidence, he made certain statements-which will be referred to later on-about the profit earned by the first defendant towards his four annas share in the main partnership ' The Deccan Sand Syndicate ' . On the basis of these statements, the first defendant raised an objection before the lower Court contending that the plaint was undervalued and that the plaintiff must be directed to estimate the value of his share of the profits in the plaint as per the estimate given by him in his evidence and made to pay the ad valorem Court-fee thereon as required by section 33 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. Arguments were heard by the lower Court on this point. By its order, dated 15th October, 1960, the lower Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to give his own valuation in the plaint and that it is not open to the Court to direct the plaintiff to change his valuation from time to time, as the trial of the suit proceeds. The lower Court also pointed out that, if ultimately a larger amount than what was estimated in the plaint is to be found to be due to the plaintiff, an adequate method is provided for under section 33 of the Act itself for collecting the proper Court-fee from the plaintiff. It, therefore, declined to direct the plaintiff to amend the valuation of the suit given in the plaint and to pay the Court-fee thereon.

(2.) It is to revise this order that the first defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition. Under section 7, clause (4) (f) of the Court-fees Act (VII of 1870) it has been consistently held by the High Court of Madras that in a suit for accounts, the plaintiff is entitled to value the relief claimed at any amount he likes and pay the Court-fee thereon and that the Court had no jurisdiction to estimate the probable amount which might be due to the plaintiff and direct the plaintiff to amend the valuation and pay the Court-fee on the amount so arrived at. But, under the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, there are sections 32 and 33. Section 32 provides for the valuation of suits for accounts and for the computation of Court-fee payable on the plaint in such suits. Section 32, clause (1) reads as followes:- "In a suit for accounts, fee shall be computed on the amount estimated in the plaint." Clauses (2), (3) and (4) of the same section provide for the collection of any deficit Court-fee payable by the plaintiff if and when ultimately it be found necessary to give a decree for an amount higher than that stated in the plaint. Section 33 deals with the valuation of the suits and for computation of Court-fee in suits for dissolution of the partnership. Section 33, clause (1), reads as follows:-

(3.) It appears from the allegations in the plaint that this is a suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership. When giving evidence as P.W. 5, the plaintiff stated in the chief-examination, in answer to a question put by his counsel, that the first defendant got profit of more than one lakh of rupees in the main partnership of 'The Deccan Sand Syndicate ' . In cross-examination, he stated that he personally knew that each sharer got Rs. 85,000 as profit in ' The Deccan Sand Syndicate ' for two years and that the plaintiff's share of profits would approximately be Rs. 16,000. Relying on these two statements of the plaintiff in his evidence, the learned counsel for the defendants urged in the lower Court that the plaintiff shall be directed to amend the valuation of the plaint at least at Rs. 16,000 and pay the Court-fee thereon. The difference in language in section 32 and section 33 also is pointed out. Under section 32, fee shall be computed on the amount " estimated in the plaint ". Under section 33, fee shall be computed on the value of the plaintiff's share in the partnership "as estimated by the plaintiff" . It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, under section 33, if at any time during the trial of the suit, it appears that the plaintiff estimates the value of his share in the partnership at an amount higher than that given in the plaint, the Court is bound to call upon the plaintiff to amend his valuation on the basis of the latter estimate and direct him to pay the Court-fee thereon. The phrase " as estimated by the plaintiff" occurs only in section 33, clause (1) of the Act, whereas under section 32, clause (1), the expression is "estimated in the plaint" . From the absence of the words " in the plaint " in section 33, clause (1), it is argued that whenever it appears to the Court that the plaintiff during the course of the trial estimates the value of his share in the partnership at an amount higher than that given in the plaint, the plaintiff shall be ordered to amend the valuation given in the plaint and to pay the Court-fee thereon. Reliance for this contention is placed on the decision in Parameswaran v. Sarveswaran, (1960)1 M.L.J. 468 : A.I.R. 1960 Mad. 260.