PERIA NAMBI SRINIVASACHARIAR Vs. KUNA RAMASAMY NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul directing payment of Court-fee on the amount mentioned in. the plaint as damages on the ground that the proper Court-fee was not paid. The first plaintiff has preferred this petition.

(2.) The contention of Mr. Rajah Iyer, for the petitioner, is that the order of the Subordinate Judge was without jurisdiction inasmuch as his client was entitled to ask in a scheme suit for an account against the trustee. No doubt in a scheme suit a decree may be passed against the trustee in office to account for the income of the property which was under his management. But in this case what the plaintiff has done is to ask for a specific sum to be paid by the defendant as damages-for the loss caused to the said devasthanamby the defendants misconduct. Claiming damages on account , of misconduct is not one of the reliefs under Section 92, C.P.C.

(3.) If the plaintiffs wanted the defendant to account for the income of the institution of which the said defendant was the manager, he should have been asked to submit an account relating to his management. Prayer (6) of para. II of the plaint does ask for an account of the management. But prayer (c) wants the defendant to pay Rs. 58,000 and odd as damages for the losses caused to the devasthanam during his management. As this is made on a different footing from the ground of accountability of a trustee for the income of the property which was under his management, I think the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is right and I dismiss the civil revision petition with costs.