Satyanarayana vs Boddu Veeraswamy and Others

Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.—The question that arises for decision in this Civil Revision petition is one under Sec. 33 of Andhra Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (Act No. VII of 1955). The defendant is the petitioner in this civil revision petition.

It is alleged in the plaint that the 1st defendant and three others were carrying on business as sand contractors under the name and style of "The Deccan Sand Syndicate" between the years 1955 and 1957 in partnership. On 8-7-1955, the 1st defendant admitted the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 as sub-partners in the four annas share in "The Deccan Sand Syndicate", this sub-partnership being styled as "Satyanarayana and Company" each partner having an equal share in the profit and loss. The plaintiff contributed a sum of I. G. Rs. 3,014-4-6 from time to time towards the latter partnership.

It is alleged that, in December, 1957, the main partnership "The Deccan Sand Syndicate" was dissolved. In the suit, the plaintiff prayed that a preliminary decree be passed directing the 1st defendant to render accounts of the suit partnership already dissolved and declaring the shares of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 being equal in profit and loss and for other consequential reliefs. In para 7 of the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff tentatively values the relief for accounts at Rs. 500/- and a court fee of Rs. 56-4-0 was paid under Sec. 33 of the Andhra Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act. It is also stated in that para that the plaintiff undertakes to pay the deficit court-fee, if any, after the amount due to his share is ascertained. The trial of the case was taken up and the plaintiff examined himself as P. W. 5. During the course of his evidence, he made certain statements- which will be referred to later on - about the profit earned by the 1st defendant towards his four annas share in the main partnership ''The Deccan Sand Syndicate."

On the basis of these statements, the 1st defendant raised an objection before the lower Court contending that the plaint was undervalued and that the plaintiff must be directed to estimate the value of his share of the profits in the plaint as per the estimate given by him in his evidence and made to pay the ad valorem court-fee thereon as required by Sec. 33 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. Arguments were heard by the lower Court on this point. By its order dated 15-10-60, the lower Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to give his own valuation in the plaint and that it is not open to the Court to direct the plaintiff to change his valuation from time to time, as the trial of the suit proceeds. The lower Court also pointed out that, if ultimately a larger amount than what was estimated in the plaint is to be found to be due to the plaintiff, an adequate method is provided for under Sec. 33 of the Act itself for collecting the proper court-fee from the plaintiff. It therefore, declined to direct the plaintiff to amend the valuation of the suit given in the plaint and to pay the Court-fee thereon. It is to revise this order that the 1st defendant filed this civil revision petition.

u/s 7, Cl. (iv) (f), of the Court Fees Act (Act VII of 1870), it has been consistently held by the High Court of Madras that in a suit for accounts, the plaintiff is entitled to value the relief claimed at any amount he likes and pay the court-fee thereon and that the court had no jurisdiction to estimate the probable amount which might be due to the plaintiff and direct the plaintiff to amend the valuation and pay the court-fee on the amount so arrived at. But, under the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, there are Secs. 32 and 33. Section 32 provides for the valuation of suits for accounts and for the computation of court-fee payable on the plaint in such suits. Section 32, cl. (1) reads as follows:

In a suit for accounts, fee shall be computed on the amount estimated in the plaint.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the same section provide for the collection of any deficit court-fee payable by the plaintiff if and when ultimately it be found necessary to give a decree for an amount higher than that stated in the plaint. Section 33 deals with the valuation of the suits and for computation of court-fee in suits for dissolution of the partnership. Section 33 cl. (1) reads as follows :

In a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts or for accounts of dissolved partnership, fee shall be computed on the value of the plaintiffs share in the partnership as estimated by the plaintiff.

It appears from the allegations in the plaint that this is a suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership. When giving evidence as P. W. 5, the plaintiff stated in the chief examination in answer to a question put by his counsel that the 1st defendant got profit of more than one lakh of rupees in the main partnership of "The Deccan Sand Syndicate", in cross-examination, he stated that he personally knew that each sharer got Rs. 85,000/- as profit in "The Deccan Sand Syndicate" for two years and that the plaintiffs share of profits would approximately be Rs. 16,000/-.

Relying on these two statements of the plaintiff in his evidence, the learned counsel for the defendants urged in the lower Court that the plaintiff shall be directed to amend the valuation of the plaint at least at Rs. 16,000/- and pay the Court-fee thereon. The difference in language in S. 32 and Section 33 also is pointed out. u/s 32, fee shall be computed on the amount "estimated in the plaint". u/s 33, fee shall be computed on the value of the plaintiffs share in the partnership "as estimated by the plaintiff". It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, u/s 33, if at any time during the trial of the suit, it appears that the plaintiff estimates the value of his share in the partnership at an amount higher than that given in the plaint, the Court is bound to call upon the plaintiff to amend his valuation on the basis of the latter estimate and direct him to pay the court-fee thereon. The phrase "as estimated by the plaintiff" occurs only in Section 33, clause (1) of the Act, whereas u/s 32 clause (1), the expression is "estimated in the plaint".

From the absence of the words "in the plaint" in Section 33 clause (1) it is argued that whenever it appears to the Court that the plaintiff during the course of the trial estimates the value of his share in the partnership at an amount higher than that given in the plaint, the plaintiff shall be ordered to amend the valuation given in the plaint and to pay the court-fee thereon. Reliance for this contention is placed on the decision in S. Parameswaran Vs. S. Sarveswaran and Others, It is pointed out in that decision that

When the plaintiff purports to make an estimate in regard to what he would get on the taking of an account there would necessarily be an element of some guess or speculation. There is bound to be some kind of inaccuracy if one were to consider it in relation to the actual amount that would ultimately be found due. But if the estimate is on the face of it a sham one or so obviously wrong or if the other portions of the plaint make it clear that that is not the real estimate which the plaintiff himself had in mind it would be open to the Court to look at the plaint and ascertain what the real estimate is. But so long as there is no other averment in the plaint which renders the plaintiff''s estimate a sham one or which shows that the estimate was some other amount the Court would be bound to accept the estimate as given by the plaintiff.

This decision was given u/s 36 of the Madras Court-Fees Act (14 of 1955) which corresponds to Section 33 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. But it is clear from this decision that the question was whether a proper estimate is given in the plaint or not is to be decided only on the allegations in the plaint and it is only if, on the averments in the plaint, it is clear that the plaintiff''s estimate of the value of his share given in the plaint is a sham one or so obviously wrong that the Court could call upon the plaintiff to revise the valuation. This decision is not an authority for the proposition that, during the trial, if it appears that the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree for a higher amount, it could call upon the plaintiff to amend the valuation at a higher figure and to pay the Court-fee thereon. On the other hand, this decision supports the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that so long as there is no averment in the plaint which renders the plaintiff''s estimate a sham one or which shows that the estimate was some other amount, the Court would be bound to accept the estimate given by the plaintiff in the plaint.

In Audisesha Reddy v. Dasaratharama Reddy, 1960-2 Andn WR 393, a similar question arose for decision. It was held therein by Bhimasankaram J. that :

Under Section 33(1) of the Andhra Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is entitled to estimate the value of his share in the partnership. Such an estimate may be right or wrong and may be excessive or inadequate. But the statute enables him to pay court-fee on the value as estimated by him. It is not open to the Court to consider whether that estimate is bona fide or mala fide, just as it was not open to the Court to consider whether the estimate of the value u/s 7(iv)(f) at which relief was sought, was or was not bona fide.

It was also pointed out by the learned Judge that in applying Section 7, clause (iv) (f) of the Madras Court-fees Act, it was always held that the plaintiff was at liberty to value the relief at any amount however unreasonable and that the same reasoning applies to the construction of the language in Section 33 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act.

Though I find that there is some force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not see sufficient reason to differ from the view taken in 1960 2 AWR 393. I am also of the view that the difference in the language of Section 32, clause (1) and Section 33, clause (1) is not a material one. Under both sections, it is for the plaintiff to estimate the relief he asked for. In my view, under both the sections, it is not open to the Court to direct the plaintiff to amend the valuation and to pay higher court-fee. The Court is bound by the valuation given in the plaint by the plaintiff both in suits governed by Section 32 and Section 33 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act. It is also clear from the provisions of these two sections that the State will not at all suffer any loss and ample provision is made in these two sections for ultimately collecting the correct court-fee payable by the plaintiff in cases like this Order 7, Rule 2 C. P. C. also is in consonance with this view.

If, on the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, the valuation in the plaint will have to be amended from time to time as the trial of the suit proceeds and, in my view, such a result was not intended by the Legislature. I am persuaded to take this view also in view of Cls. 2, 3 and 4 of Sec. 33 which sufficiently provides for the collection of the proper Court-fee due to the State.

Relying upon Section 11, clause (b) of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that even in cases governed by Section 33, clause (1) of the Act, it is open to the Court to review from time to time its decision regarding the proper court-fee payable on the plaint. Section 11, clause 1 (a) and (b) are as follows :

(a). In every suit the Court shall, before ordering the plaint to be registered, decide on the allegations contained in the plaint and on the materials furnished by the plaintiff the proper fee payable thereon.

b) The decision of the Court under clause (a) regarding the proper fee payable shall be subject to review from time to time as occasion requires.

In support of this, the decision in S. Parameswaran Vs. S. Sarveswaran and Others, is again cited before me. That decision, in my opinion, is not an authority for the said proposition. What, in my opinion, is held in that decision is that, if from the allegations in the plaint it is clear that the estimate of the value of the plaintiffs, share given in the plaint is not the real estimate, but is a sham one or so obviously wrong, it would be open to the Court to look at the plaint and ascertain what the real estimate is which the plaintiff himself had in his mind. The learned Judge that gave that decision makes it clear that so long as there is no other averment in the plaint which renders the plaintiff''s estimate given in the plaint a sham one or which shows that the estimate is some other amount, the Court would be bound to accept the estimate as given by the plaintiff (obviously the estimate given in the plaint).

In my view, Section 11 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act does not empower the Court to direct the plaintiff in suits governed by Sections 32 and 33 of the Act to amend the estimate given in the plaint and pay the Court-fee on the value of the shares so amended on the basis of what the plaintiff may state after the plaint is registered u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act. Section 11(1)(b) does not apply to suits governed by Sections 32 and 33 of the Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act in which the Court is bound by the Value given by the plaintiff in his plaint.

It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff has not estimated in the plaint the value of his share in the partnership. It is stated in para 7 of the plaint that the plaintiff tentatively values the relief for accounts at Rs. 500/-. This strictly is not in accordance with the requirement of Section 33, clause (1) of the Act. But in my opinion in substance what the statement in para 7 of the plaint means is that the plaintiff estimates the value of his share in the partnership at Rs. 500/-. For these reasons, I hold that the decision of the lower Court is right and dismiss this civil revision petition. I direct the parties to bear their own costs in the civil revision petition.