ANANTA KUMAR CHATTERJEE Vs. JADUNATH MUKHERJEE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner instituted a suit in which he made prayers for the following reliefs :

(2.) Obviously the plaintiff proceeded on the basis that this case was to be governed by the provision of section 7(iv) (f) of the Court-fees Act. Objection having been taken to this, the learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that this was not a simple suit for accounts and as "the plaint contains clear admission that the plaintiff is out of possession and that the defendants deny that the plaintiff is their partner in these two businesses" and he asked for certain declaration, "he must show in his plaint the values of these properties and pay ad valorem court-fees upon them." He also directed a statement of valuation to be furnished under Order 7 rule 1 (i) of the Code of Civil Procedure and said Mere tentative valuations will not do.

(3.) The decision of the question whether the learned Subordinate Judge acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction depends on the answer to the question whether the suit is substantially one for dissolution of partnership and accounts. The mere fact that certain declarations were asked for besides the prayer for dissolution of partnership and distribution of profits and assets of the partnership would not attract the provision of section 7 (iv) (c) of the Court-fees Act. The law as laid down in a long line of cases of this and other High Courts is that the substance of the reliefs asked for in the plaint and not the mere form in which it is asked for has to be considered by the Court in deciding the proper classification of the suit for the purpose of assessing court-fees. An application of this very principle is to be found in the matter of lunatic Nanda Lal Mukherjee, 35 C.W.N. 942, where Chief Justice Rankin accepted the contention that in a case, where the plaintiff alleged that he was in possession of joint property and virtually claimed the relief that his interest and possession might be protected from consequences of another co-sharer having dealt with the property on the basis that it was his own, but he included declaration of title and a permanent injunction amongst the reliefs he sought, the declaration of title and the claim for injunction were purely empty things and the appeal was ordered to be treated as one concerning partition liable to court-fees on that basis.