CHINIMILLI BALARAMAMURTHY Vs. SITARAMASWAMIVARI DEVASTANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.S. No. 27 of 1956 is a suit filed by the present trustee of Sri Sitaramaswamivari Devastanam, Kopparru, against the ex-trustees to render an account of the income realised by them from the plaint schedule properties belonging to the Devastanam during the period from 1925 to 1953 and for recovery of such of the amounts as may be found due on taking accounts. So far as the second defendant is concerned, the relief of accounting is restricted to the period from 1935 to 1953. The plaintiff valued the suit under section 32 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act (VII of 1956) at Rs. 5,100 and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 420. The suit was partly decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Eluru. The plaintiff preferred an appeal (A.S. No. 162 of 1960) in the District Court, Eluru. The Additional District Judge, who disposed of the appeal, modified the decree of the trial Court and held that the defendants were liable to render account from 1935 to 1953. The defendants have filed the above Second Appeal. The appellants sought to value the Second Appeal at Rs. 3,278-8-6 being the proportionate value of the decree for accounting decreed for the period from 1935 to 1953 as against the valuation of Rs. 5,100 given by the plaintiff in respect of the relief of accounting claimed for the period from 1925 to 1953. The Office raised objections as follows :- "It is submitted that this basis of valuation ignores the allegation in the plaint that the plaintiff restricts his claim against the second defendant to the years from 1935 to 1953 which has been decreed. It may also be noted that both the defendants have preferred the Second Appeal.

(2.) In that case, a suit had been filed for accounting in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madura, by the plaintiff who valued the claim concerned at Rs. 3,000. The plaintiff obtained a preliminary decree. The preliminary decree was challenged on appeal made to the District Court, Madura. While that appeal was pending, a final decree was passed declaring that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 32,000. An appeal against the final decree was also filed. The District Judge, Madura, heard the two appeals together and reduced the amount of final decree to Rs. 6,554-5-2. Then, the defendants filed a Second Appeal in the Madras High Court, valuing the relief arbitrarily at Rs. 100. That valuation was accepted by the Office and the appeal was admitted in view of a decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in In re Venkatanadham, 1932 64 M.L.J. 122 : I.L.R. 56 Mad. 705.

(3.) When the appeal came on for hearing, Burn, J. questioned the right of the defendants-appellants to make an arbitrary valuation and suggested that the decision in In re Venkatanadham, 1932 64 M.L.J. 122 : I.L.R. 56 Mad. 705. should be reconsidered as it appeard to go beyond the decision of the Privy Council in Faizulla. Khan v. Mauladad Khan, 1929 57 MLJ 281 : LR 56 IA 332 (PC).