MADANMOHAN Vs. UTTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Letters Patent Appeal a short question is involved : The question relates to valuation and payment of Court-fee in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The question has arisen in the following manner.

(2.) The plaintiff brought a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts against the defendant and has valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction for dissolution of partnership at Rs. 55,000/- and has paid a fixed court-fee of Rs. 12-50. For the relief of rendition of accounts, he has valued the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 130/-. An objection was raised by the defendant that the valuation put by the plaintiff was not correct, which gave rise to an issue "whether the value of the suit for the purpose of Court-fee and jurisdiction is properly fixed." Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before us that the findings of the learned single Judge (Anand J., as his Lordship then was), are not correct in law and in such suits plaintiff can fix separate valuation in terms of S.17 of the Court-fee Act. According to him the mode in which valuation is put in the plaint is correct and in accordance with law. He has submitted that there is no provision in the Court-fees Act which prescribes payment of court-fee for a suit for dissolution of partnership. Therefore, the plaintiff is at liberty to fix the valuation for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee as regards relief of dissolution under Art.17(b) Sch. II of the Court-fees Act.S.7(IV)(f)of the Court-fees Act would govern only suits relating to accounts, therefore, the valuation is to be fixed separately for two reliefs as the two reliefs are not interdependent. It is submitted that a suit for dissolution of partnership would not automatically become a suit for accounts unless dissolution of partnership is granted by the court because there has been no dissolution of partnership outside the court between the parties. Dissolution is sought through the intervention of the Court, therefore, the court has to declare dissolution of partnership first and rendition of accounts is a continuing partnership. For rendition of accounts it is not necessary that the firm must be first dissolved, a continuing partner has a right to claim accounts from the other partners. In this view of the matter, he assails the judgment and seeks its reconsideration.

(3.) Learned single Judge has relied on an authority of Madras High Court Jaldu Manikyala Rao v. Jaldu Pyadayya AIR 1943 Mad 639. This authority presupposes that in a suit for dissolution of partnership at will and accounts the partnership between the parties is dissolved on the date of presentation of the plaint. Therefore the suit for dissolution of partnership becomes a suit for accounts the moment the plaint is presented in the court and in that view of the matter court-fees on such suits shall have to be paid u/s.7(IV)(f) of the Court-fees Act. This authority in turn has relied on a Bombay authority, viz : Bhogi Lal v. Popat Bhai (1883) ILR 7 Bom 125. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to distinguish this authority and submitted that with the presentation of the plaint in the court partnership does not get dissolved ipso facto unless the plaint is served on the defendant. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent and we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and gone through the record.