S N V R NARAYANAN CHETTI Vs. SPRALPERIAPPAN ALIAS RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR MINOR BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN SIVAGAMI ACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which we are called upon now to decide in this case is whether the memorandum of appeal has been properly stamped. The suit out of which the appeal arises was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga for the taking of the accounts of a dissolved partnership. The plaintiff valued his relief at Rs. 16,500 and paid the court-fee of Rs. 1,004-15-0. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by law of limitation. The plaintiff then appealed to this Court and in his memorandum of appeal valued the relief at Rs. 1,000 paying the corresponding court-fee of Rs. 112-7-0. In consequence of the decision of this Court in Nukala Venkatanandam, In re (1932) 64 M.L.J. 122 : I.L.R. 56 Mad. 705, this valuation was accepted by the officer whose duty it was to check the stamping of the memorandum of appeal. But that case has recently been overruled by a Full Bench in Dhanukodi Nayakkar, In re . The respondents have in consequence contended that the appellant should value his relief in accordance with the figure at which it was valued in his plaint. The appellant contends that, notwithstanding the fact that Nukala Venkatanandam, In re (1932) 64 M.L.J. 122 : I.L.R. 56 Mad. 705, has been overruled, the case is governed by Faizullah Khan V/s. Mauladad Khan (1929) 57 M.L.J. 281 : L.R. 56 I.A. 232 : I.L.R. 10 Lah. 737 (P.C.) and that the memorandum of appeal is properly stamped.

(2.) The question resolves itself into this: - Can the appellant in an appeal against a decree dismissing a suit for an account change his valuation, although the subject-matter of the appeal is the same as in the trial Court?. Section 7(4) of the Court-Fees Act requires a suit for accounts to be stamped "according to the value at which the relief is valued in the plaint or memorandum" and adds: In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought.

(3.) It is said, that, as there is a reference in this clause to the memorandum of appeal, the appellant is allowed to value the relief on appeal at whatever he likes, notwithstanding that he valued it in the trial Court at a higher figure and that the correctness of this course is expressly recognised in Faisullah Khan V/s. Manladad Khan (1929) 57 M.L.J. 281 : L.R. 56 I.A. 232 : I.L.R. 10 Lah. 737 (P.C.).