P VENKATASWAMY Vs. D VENKATANARASIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 78 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the First Assistant Judge,'City Civil Court, Secunderabad, is the petitioner before me. He and defendants 1 and 2 formed into a partnership by a deed dated 26th August, 1953 and carried on business under the name and style of " D. Venkata Narasaiah " in the execution of contract works of various State Governments. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the plaint that on 7th November, 1960 three documents, namely, (1) dissolution of partnership, (2) release deed, and (3) General Power of Attorney were got into existence, to which the plaintiff was a party and under which the plaintiff was paid by the defendants a sum of Rs. 13,000 with a promise that the accounts would be looked into and settled later on. There is also the further allegation in paragraph 4 of the plaint that the three documents were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and with the active connivance and assistance of one Ratan Singh and Satyanarayana and Sattaiah. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for A *7 dissolution of partnership, directing the 1st defendant to render the accounts of the partnership firm and declaring the shares of the plaintiff, and, for a decree for such sum as found due and payable to the plaintiff by the defendants after the settlement of accounts. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed I.A. NO. 624 of 1964 in the lower Court under Order 6, rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, for amending the plaint by adding the following reliefs :

(2.) The prayers already made in the original plaint are to follow the above prayers. This application was opposed by the first defendant. The lower Court, while dismissing the application for amendment, framed the following two points for consideration : (1) Whether the suit and the relief sought are barred by limitation ? (2) Whether by allowing the amendment the jurisdiction of this Court gets ousted as being beyond its pecuniary jurisdictional competency ? On both the above points, the lower Court held against the plaintiff. Hence, this revision is filed by the plaintiff. I shall now consider the question whether the jurisdiction of the Court will be ousted if the amendments are allowed. Each of the documents sought to be set aside recites that the plaintiff received Rs. 13,000 in full settlement of his share in the partnership. All the three documents form part of the same transaction. The effect of those three documents was that the plaintiff received Rs. 13,000 and gave up all his rights in the partnership. Under the General Power of Attorney, he authorised the first defendant to collect whatever the dues were to the partnership. The lower Court thought that each of the documents has to be valued at Rs. 13,000, and not on the total value, and if the amendments are allowed, it would have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Then it was argued that the plaint and the petition for amendment may be returned so that they might be presented to the Court having jurisdiction to entertain the plaint as amended. But the lower Court did not think it necessary to do so, as in its opinion, the amendments could not be granted for the reason that the amended claim would be barred by limitation even on the date of the plaint, which was filed more than three years after the plaintiff became aware of the circumstances which entitled him to setting aside of the deeds. The relief as to the setting aside of the documents is to be valued under section 37 (1) of the Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act). Clause (1) of the said section is as follows :

(3.) It is on a reading of this clause that the lower Court held that the three reliefs sought to be introduced for, the cancellation of the three documents, are to be valued separately on Rs. 13,000 each. But, the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the amount of Rs. 13,000 is not the value of the property released by the plaintiff under the document, but it was the amount received by him as consideration for the release of his rights, and therefore, the view taken by the lower Court that each of the documents has to be valued at Rs. 13,000 is erroneous. In support of this argument, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Madras High Court in. S. K. Mohamad Ibrahim and others v. M. Vedachala Mudaliar (died) and others, (1958) 2 M.L.J. 442 : I.L.R. (1959) Mad. 90 which is a decision given by Justice Ramachandra Iyer (as he then was). That case also arose out of a suit for dissolution of partnership firm, or in the alternative for taking accounts, if the Court were to hold that the partnership was already dissolved. The plaintiffs were the heirs of a deceased partner. Even ia the plaint, it was stated that for a certain consideration each of the plaintiffs were made to give up their rights and execute receipts which were marked as Exhibits. B-1, B-2 and B-3, which recited that the plaintiffs gave up all their rights in the partnership firm. The question was how the suit was to be valued, and what was the Court-fee to be paid. The relevant provision of law applicable was section 7 clause (iv-A) of the Madras Court-fees Act which is as follows :