Back
In the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
BHIMASANKARAM, J.
Yenatapalli Audisesha Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
Gangapatnam Dasaratharama Reddy and others - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 453 of 1957
Decided on : 05-07-1960
Court-fees Act - Partnership - Plaintiff's Estimate of Share Value
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and estimated his share at Rs. 500, paying Court-fee as prescribed by section 33 of the Andhra Court-fees Act of 1956. The District Munsif directed the return of the plaint, requesting a bona fide estimate and payment of Court-fee.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that under section 33(1), the plaintiff is entitled to estimate the value of his share in the partnership, and the statute enables him to pay Court-fee on the value as estimated by him. The court disagreed with the view that the plaintiff is only entitled to make a bona fide estimate.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of section 33 of the Andhra Court-fees Act regarding the plaintiff's entitlement to estimate the value of his share in the partnership for the purpose of paying Court-fee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the reasoning from the old provision under the Madras Court-fees Act and held that just as formerly the plaintiff was entitled to state the amount, he is now entitled to give his own estimate. The court emphasized that it is not open to the Court to consider whether that estimate is bona fide or mala fide.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the plaint was received and registered. The petitioner was entitled to his costs of the petition.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in a suit for dissolution of partnership and acounts. He estimated his share in the partnership at Rs. 500 and paid Court-fee thereon, as prescribed by section 33 of the Andhra Court-fees Act of 1956. The District Munsif was of the opinion that under the section the plaintiff is not entitled to put any kind of estimate, but only what he calls a bona fide estimate and directed the return of the plaint with the requisition that the plaintiff should make a bona fide estimate and pay Court-fee thereon. I cann't agree with this view. Under section 33(1), the plaintiff is entitled to estimate the value of his share in the parnership. 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. The old provision by which such suits were governed was section 7, clause (iv), sub-clause (f) of the Madras Court-fees Act, where-under in a suit for accounts the plaintiff could state the amount at which he valued the relief sought and pay Court-fee thereon. In applying this provision, it was always held that the plaintiff was at liberty to value the relief at any amount, however unreasonable. It seems to me that the same reasoning applies to the construction of the language in section 33 of the Andhra Court-fees Act. Just as formerly the plaintiff in such a suit was entitled to state the amount, he is now entitled to give his own estimate. 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 statement of the value under section 7(iv)(f) at which relief was sought, was not bona fide.
2. The petition is allowed and the plaint will be received and registered. The petitioner is entitled to his costs of this petition.
M.S.K.
Revision allowed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
