Court can go behind of the share.

This is a revision petition at the instance of the plaintiff against the order of the lower Court directing the petitioner to pay

the Court-fee on Rs. 32,000 less the Court-fee already paid on the plaint.

The plaintiff filed a suit for accounts of a dissolved partnership from 1948 up to the date of the suit and to have the

assets realised including therein the goodwill, plant and machinery which according to him were wrongfully taken over

by the defendants. In paragraph 22 of the plaint it was stated that the plaintiff estimated his share of the assets payable

to him in the sum of Rs. 8,000. A Court-fee of Rs. 600 was paid under section 36 (1) of the Court-fees Act of 1955.

There was also an undertaking to pay an additional Court-fee after the ascertainment of the amount due by him. The first

defendant contested the correctness of the valuation of the plaint. Issue 15 was raised as to the proper Court-fee

payable on the plaint. The learned Assistant City Civil Judge held that the proper value on the basis of the plaint would

be a sum of Rs. 32,000 and required the plaintiff to pay the additional Court-fee thereon. The plaintiff has filed this Civil

Revision Petition challenging the correctness of the order requiring an additional Court-fee. The finding of the learned

Judge was that the plaintiff’s share in the partnership business would come to Rs. 32,000. This was based on the

allegations contained in paragraph 14 of the plaint. The case of the plaintiff was that although he was a partner, he was

practically excluded from taking part in the affairs of the firm, and that on 22nd July, 1954, one of the defendants acting

at the instance of the others sent a notice of dissolution of the firm. In paragraph 14 of the plaint the plaintiff gave

instances of certain transactions followed by some adjustments in the accounts by the defendants. It is necessary to refer

to that paragraph for the purpose of appreciating the points in dispute in the present case. Paragraph 14 of the plaint

runs as follows:-

“Accordingly on the 12th August, 1954, a meeting was held and with their united strength, the defendants decided upon

the dissolution of the firm and proceeded to a series of steps to try to deny and deprive the plaintiff of his just share in

the assets of the firm.

(i) As Manager, the plaintiff had been given bonus, dearness allowance and holiday wages from 1947-48 to 1950-51,

i.e., during a period of his management, year after year, aggregating to Rs. 1961-6-0 with the consent and to the

knowledge of all the partners. After the said amounts has been appropriated and paid and spent, they now claim to have

discovered the irregularity and proceeded to reverse it and debit the amount personally to the plaintiff.

(ii) In order to wipe out his share, the defendants decided that the goodwill which had been valued at Rs. 1,25,099-9-6

and which had stood for several years should be wiped out and each partner was to be debited his own sixth share of

the amount, thus taking away at one stroke from the plaintiff Rs. 20,833-5-4.

(iii) Lastly they also seem to have decided that all the plant and machinery should be valued and sold to themselves at

Rs. 84,000 which did not represent the real value at all and which was really worth not less than one and a half lakhs.

Neither the resolution nor the sale was communicated to the plaintiff, nor was his consent obtained.”

In that paragraph three instances of manipulations of accounts and improper dealing with the partnership property are

given. Such instances do not by themselves show what exactly would be the share of the plaintiff if an account were to

be taken from 1948 to the date of the suit. It may be that even if the plaintiff’s case were to be accepted in regard to the

three instances set out in paragraph 14, the plaintiff might not get more than Rs. 8,000, the amount estimated by him in

the plaint. The amount due to the plaintiff could be ascertained only after the entire accounts were taken.