AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Cornish, J.—The question (for determination is whether the suit is a suit for money, and accordingly governed by Section 7 Clause (i) of the
Court Fees Act as held by the District Munsif, or whether it is a suit for accounts, and therefore, governed by Section 7 Clause iv(f) as contended
for by the petitioner who is the plaintiff.
The plaint prays for an account and for the payment of such sum as shall be found due to plaintiff on the taking of an account. But a suit does not
necessarily become a suit for accounts because the plaint asks for an account. The plaint must show that the defendant is an accounting party and
that the plaintiff claims on the footing that an account has to be taken to ascertain the sum due to him. The plaint here sets out that plaintiff was in
the employment of the defendant as a Revenue Inspector, that his superior officer made a complaint of his having misappropriated certain rent
collections, and that under a threat of criminal prosecution and of losing his employment the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs 1,769 odd in five separate
amounts to cover the alleged defalcations. The plaint alleges that it was specially agreed at the time of each payment that the accounts would be
settled and that such money as was not found owing to defendant would be paid back to the plaintiff. The plaint further alleges that defendant was
bound to render an account in respect of these payments, and that he had not done so nor made any investigation of the plaintiff''s account books
for that purpose. Paragraph (e) of the plaint pays:
In any view of the ease amount of Rs. 1,769 or such portion of the amount as was not then owing to defendant must in the eye of the law be
deemed to have been paid under threats by a person having a dominating influence over plaintiff, and the plaintiff is entitled to a return of it with
interests at 6 per cont.
The plaintiff''s prayer is for ""a decree directing that the accounts of the transactions which led up to the deposit of Rs. 1,769 be taken and that
the defendant be directed to pay such amount as may be found due."" Although the plaintiff does not admit misappropriation of any money he
admits in the plaint that he has falsified the account?, and that some money may be found due by him to the defendant. The pleading is not precise
but it appears to me that plaintiff is not claiming to recover the sum of Rs. 1,769 paid by him but only so much as may be found due after an
account has been taken. I think, therefore, the suit should be regarded as substantially a suit for accounts. The suit then, falling u/s 7 Clause iv(f),the
court-fee payable is to be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint The plaintiff fixed that value at Rs.
The District Munsif has discussed the effect of the plaintiff''s having valued the suit for purposes of jurisdiction at a different figure, namely, Rs.
1,769. But this valuation for jurisdiction was immaterial. The authorities show that in a suit governed by Section 7, Clause (iv)(f) a plaintiff is
entitled to pay court-fee on the value he has thought fit to give to the relief sought, notwithstanding that he has through mistake or inadvertence
stated the value for the purposes of jurisdiction at a different figure: see tiailendra Nath Mitra v. Ram Chandra Pal 66 Ind. Cas.268 : 25 C.W.N.
768 : 34 C.L.J 94, Bat Hiraja ri v. Gulabdas 22 Ind. Cas. 71 : 15 Bom. L.R. 1123, In Re: Court-fee Act and Kalipada Mukharjee, . Learned
Counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment of Jackson, J., ia (Pothi) Annapurnayya Vs. (Pothi) Nagaratnamma and Others, as laying
down a different rule. But in my view it does nothing of the kind and in fact it cites and accepts the proposition laid down in Sailendra Nath Mitra
v. Ram Chandra Pal 66 Ind. Cas. 268 : 25 C.W.N. 768 : 34 C.L.J 94 (supra) that the valuation for purpose of jurisdiction should follow and be
the same as the valuation for court fee.
The result is that this revision petit on will be allowed with costs throughout and the order of the District Munsif set aside.