Varadarajan, J.— This petition under Order 6, rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the Appellant for amendment of the plaint by omitting the words (1) "and nothing more" occurring in paragraph 8 (2) "and pay the plaintiff the amounts that are still with him" less the amounts already paid" occurring in paragraph 9; and (3) "much more will be due" occurring in paragraph 12 of the plaint.

2. The petitioner’s suit before the Sub-Court, Devakkottai was for directing the respondent-defendant to render account of all the transactions made by the defendant as the plaintiff’s agent from 22nd January, 1965 and also for all the amounts received by the defendant on the plaintiff’s behalf as his agent including the amount received from one Alagappa and to pay the petitioner whatever may be found to be due to him. According to the plaint the plaintiff, the defendant and their two brothers Alagappa and Annamalai were partners of A. K. A. CT. V. Firm carrying on business at Kula Lumpur each of them having one-fourth share. On 22nd January, 1965 the plaintiff executed a general power of attorney at Karaikudi in Tamil Nadu authorising the defendant to transact all his business, sell his properties and receive the sale price and other monies etc. The plaintiff and the defendant have retired from the partnership on 27th March, 1965 leaving their other two brothers, Alagappa and Annamalai to carry on the business, in consideration of Alagappa paying the plaintiff and the defendant 6,50,000 dollars each equivalent to Rs. 16,12,000 at Rs. 248 per 100 dollars for taking their shares and all the assets in the firm. The defendant received from Alagappa as the plaintiff’s agent a sum of 6,50,000 dollars equivalent to Rs. 16,12,000 on or about 13th April, 1965 and remitted to the plaintiff at Kottaiyur four sums, namely Rs. 25,000 on 25th October, 1965, Rs. 1,30,750 on 7th February, 1966 and Rs. 25,311-65 on 7th February, 1966 and Rs. 4,56,340 on 11th August, 1967 aggregating to Rs. 6,37,401.65 “and nothing more”. The defendant is bound to render an account of the monies received from Alagappa and pay the plaintiff the amounts that are still with him “less the amounts paid”.

3. The plaintiff has valued the suit for court-fee and jurisdiction tentatively at Rs. 12,000 under section 35 (1) of the Court-fees Act XIV of 1955 and paid a court-fee of Rs. 900.50, and added in paragraph 12 of the plaint that much “more will be due” and that if on taking accounts more is found due by the defendant, he will pay the court-fee on the excess found due to him.

4. The defendant has contended, inter alia, in his written statement that the suit is not properly valued and proper court-fee has not been paid.

5. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit with, costs on 13th December, 1971 holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of accounting prayed for. On issue 6 relating to valuation and court-fee, he had given a finding on 21st January, 1971 that the valuation and court-fee paid are proper. In that finding he has observed: —

“We cannot expect the plaintiff to know what amount the defendant received on his behalf even though it is admitted by the parties that the share of the plaintiff’s assets in the firm was valued at Rs. 6,50,000 dollars and taken over by his elder brother Alagappa Chettiar. In these circumstances the plaintiff has filed the suit as one for rendition of accounts and valued the same at Rs. 12,000. As the plaintiff cannot be expected to know the amount received by the defendant on his behalf, the frame of the suit and its valuation ‘for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction cannot be said to be wrong. So I hold that the plaint has been properly valued and proper court-fee has been paid”.

When arguments in the appeal were advanced it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent by way of assisting the Court that though under clause (1) of section 35 of the Court-fees Act, 1955 in a suit for ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document