SOORATSINGH MATHURAPRASAD Vs. DEEPCHAND RAMLAL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question raised in this revision petition is about the court-fees payable by the plaintiff-applicant in an appeal filed by him in the Court of the Additional district Judge Sagar attainst a final decree passed by the Civil Judge Class II, sagar. in a suit filed by the petitioner for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts making the applicant liable for payment of Rs 4. 472. 50 np. to the defendant-opponent Deepchand.

(2.) THE petitioner valued his suit at Rs. 4,500 for the purpose of court-lees, and asked for rendering of accounts and a decree for that amount with the statement that if more than Rs. 4,500 were found due from the defendants, he would pay an additional court-fee. The defendant No. 1 asked for a decree in his own favour. After taking of accounts no sum was found due to the plaintiff On the other hand, it was found that a sum of Rs. 4,472. 50 np. was due from him to the defendant No 1. In the appeal which he filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sagar, the plaintiff claimed the relief of setting aside the decree for Rs. 4,472. 50 np. passed against him and prayed for a decree in his favour for such amount as might be found due to him. He valued the appeal at Rs. 5,000. The learned additional District Judge took the view that court-fee payable in the appeal filed by the petitioner was ad valorem on the total sum of Rs. 4,500 and Rs 4,472 50 np and accordingly passed an order directing the petitioner to pay the deficit court-fee.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I have reached the conclusion that the order of the learned Additional District Judge cannot be sustained The court-fee payable on the plaint in a suit for accounts or on memorandum of appeal arising out of such suit is, as provided in Section 7 (iv) (f) of the Court-fees Act, 1870 "according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal. " The words of Section 7 (iv) (f) are plain and they permit the plaintiff or the appellant to put his own valuation No doubt. the plaintiff of the appellant cannot place any arbitrary valuation on the plaint of the memorandum of appeal. The valuation must he a reasonable one; and when a question is raised as to the true valuation, it is open to the Court to determine whether the valuation put by the plaintiff or the appellant is a reasonable one An unsuccessful plain till in a suit for rendition of accounts, when appealing for a decree, cannot on general principle be allowed to value the relief--identical with that sought in the plaint prayed for in appeal at a figure lower than which he himself had stilled in the plaint. So also, a defendant against whom a decree for rendition of account has been passed and who accepted without protest the valuation put by the plaintiff or who failed to satisfy the trial Court about the high valuation of the suit by the plaintiff, cannot in appeal he permitted to turn round and say that the valuation of the relief to the plaintiff is lower than that stated by him in the plaint. The petitioner was therefore, entitled to put his own valuation on the memorandum of appeal and the valuation of Rs. 5. 000 put by him in the appeal cannot be said to be arbitrary of unreasonable when in the trial Court the relief sought by him was valued in the plaint at Rs. 4,500 That in an appeal arising out of a suit for accounts the appellant is entitled to put his own valuation on the memorandum of appeal is clear from the decision of the Privy Council in Kaizullah Khan v. Mauladad Khan air 1929 PC 147. That decision also shows that the learned Additional District judge was not right in demanding from the petitioner ad valorem court-fee on the amount of Rs. 4,472. 50 np. decreed against him and also on the amount of Rs. 4. 500 at which be valued the relief sought in the plaint