CHUNNI LAL Vs. SHEO CHARAN LAL LALMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary question raised on behalf of the respondents is that the valuation of this appeal is improper. The appeal arises out of a suit for dissolution of partnership which was valued by the plaintiffs for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 4,500. The plaintiffs claimed that the partnership may be dissolved and that the defendants may be made to render an account and they asked for a decree for Rs. 4,500 and interest thereon or for any sum which may on account be found due. The Court of first instance found that the partnership had been dissolved more than three years before the suit and the claim was barred by limitation. It accordingly dismissed the suit in due. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge who took the view that the partnership had not been dissolved on the date of the filing of the suit. He also found that all the defendants were liable as partners. He accordingly reversed the decree of the first Court and directed that a decree be drawn up under Order 20, Rule 15, declaring that the partnership shall stand dissolved on the date of his judgment and declaring the shares of the parties as proved and directing the defendant Chunni Lal to render accounts on or before the 15 of July 1924. The appeal before the Judge was valued by the plaintiffs at their original valuation.

(2.) Chunni Lal and two other defendants have appealed to this Court from the preliminary decree. They have valued the appeal at Rs. 550 and paid a Court-fee of Rs. 41-4-0.

(3.) The learned vakil for the respondents has urged before us that the appeal has been wrongly valued. We may note that at the time when the appeal was presented the stamp reporter of this Court took no objection to the valuation) nor to the amount of Court-fee paid, and that there has been in this case no reference to the Taxing Officer or the Taxing Judge at all.