Back
Judges : JAGANNADHA SHETTY,SAHAI
Sujir Keshav Nayak - Appellant
Versus
Sujir Ganesh Nayak - Respondent
Case No : C.A. No. 4897 of 1991
Decided On : 12/12/1991
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner:-- For the Respondent:---
Court Fee - Dissolution of Partnership - S.36 of Kerala Court Fees And Suits Valuation Act, 1959 - S.36 - Suits for dissolution of partnership - (1) 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. (2) If the value of the plaintiffs share as ascertained in the suit exceeds the value as estimated in the plaint, no decree, or where there has been a preliminary decree, no final decree, shall be passed in favour of the plaintiff, no payment shall be made out of the assets of the partnership and no property shall be allotted as for the paintiffs share, until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the value so ascertained, is paid. (3) No final decree shall be passed no money shall be paid and no allotment of property shall be made in favour of a defendant in any such suit as, for or on account of, his share of the assets of the partnership, until the fee computed on the amount or value of his share of the assets of the partnership is paid. - The court discussed the provisions of S.36 of the Kerala Act and its similarity to the Court Fees Act of 1870. It emphasized the plaintiff's option to value the claim for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, and the court's power to examine the correctness of the valuation. The court also highlighted the distinction between suits filed in courts of limited and unlimited jurisdiction in terms of valuation. It concluded that in suits filed in courts of unlimited jurisdiction, the valuation disclosed by the plaintiff may be accepted as correct, but the court still has the power to examine the valuation if it appears to be arbitrary. The judgment emphasized the duty of the plaintiff to give a fair estimate of the amount for which he sues, and the court's duty to avoid delaying the suit. The court held that the High Court was not entitled to direct the plaintiff to revalue the suit and pay court fee on it in a suit filed in a court of unlimited jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose between plaintiff and defendant, real brothers carrying on business in partnership. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the partnership stood dissolved and the defendant was liable for rendition of account. The suit was valued at Rs.10,050, and additional issues were framed about the valuation of the suit. The trial court held that the suit was undervalued, directed the plaintiff to correct the valuation and pay the deficient court fee. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, leading to a delay of nine years in the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court was not entitled to direct the plaintiff to revalue the suit and pay court fee on it in a suit filed in a court of unlimited jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was the valuation of the suit for dissolution of partnership and accounting, and whether the High Court was entitled to direct the plaintiff to revalue the suit and pay court fee on it in a suit filed in a court of unlimited jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the plaintiff's option to value the claim for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction, and the court's power to examine the correctness of the valuation. It highlighted the distinction between suits filed in courts of limited and unlimited jurisdiction in terms of valuation. The judgment emphasized the duty of the plaintiff to give a fair estimate of the amount for which he sues, and the court's duty to avoid delaying the suit.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, and the order of the courts below directing the appellant to revalue the suit and pay the court fee on it was set aside. The trial court was directed to proceed to decide the suit in accordance with the law, and the appellant was entitled to his costs throughout.
1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal directed against judgment of the Kerala High Court is if the court fee liable to be paid under S.36 of Kerala Court Fees And Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounting is to be computed on the value of the plaintiff's share in a partnership as estimated by him or as found by the Court.
2. Computation of court fee under the Kerala Act is governed by Chapter IV of the Act. S.35 deals with suits for accounts and S.36 suit for dissolution of partnership. Since this appeal is concerned with S.36 only it is extracted below:
"36. Suits for dissolution of partnership - (1) 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.
(2) If the value of the plaintiffs share as ascertained in the suit exceeds the value as estimated in the plaint, no decree, or where there has been a preliminary decree, no final decree, shall be passed in favour of the plaintiff, no payment shall be made out of the assets of the partnership and no property shall be allotted as for the paintiffs share, until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the value so ascertained, is paid.
(3) No final decree shall be passed no money shall be paid and no allotment of property shall be made in favour of a defendant in any such suit as, for or on account of, his share of the assets of the partnership, until the fee computed on the amount or value of his share of the assets of the partnership is paid.
The scheme followed in Chapter IV of the Act is analogous to method of computation of court fee provided for by S.7(iv) and its various sub-clauses of Court Fees Act of 1870. Clause (f) of S.7(iv) reads as under:
"(f) for accounts-according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal;"
Various sections of the Kerala Act or different sub-clauses of S.7 of the Central Act contemplate three modes of valuation of the subject matter namely according to market value, or subject matter or estimate by plaintiff or according to the amount at which relief sought is valued. Payment of court fee on estimate by the plaintiff or on the relief sought is a method provided for in such suits where the exact amount is not known or is not capable of being known till it has been adjudicated upon on evidence. In S.R.A.S.S. Sathappa Chettiar v. S.R.A.R. Ramanathan Chettiar, 1958 SCR 1024 this Court, while examining the scheme of computation of court fee in suits falling under S.7(iv) of 1870 Act, observed,
" If the scheme laid down for the computation of fees payable in suits covered by the several sub-sections of S.7 is considered, it would be clear that, in respect of suits falling under sub-s. (iv), a departure has been made and liberty has been given to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purposes of court fees. The theoretical basis of this provision appears to be that in cases in which the plaintiff is given the option to value his claim with any precision or definiteness. That is why legislature has left it to the option of the plaintiff to value his claim for the payment of court fees. It really means that in suits falling under S.7(iv)(b) the amount stated by the plaintiff as the value of his claim for partition has ordinarily to be accepted by the court in computing the court fees payable in respect of the said relief."
Same reasoning applies to suits filed for dissolution of partnership and accounting under S.36 of the Kerala Act.
3. The question however is if the disclosure of valuation is in absolute discretion or option of the plaintiff or it can be objected to by the defendants and adjudicated upon by the Court, and if so in what cases. It was left open in Chet
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
