9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (2) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dents we granted Special Leave Petition and the appeal is thus heard. 2. The appellant filed the suit praying for a decree against the respondent/defendant to render true and correct account of all the transactions of the respondent as the petitioner's agent from 22nd January, 1965 and also of all the amounts received by him as the agent of the petitioner including the amount recovered by him from Alagappa Chettiar and pay to the petitioner the amount found due on such rendition of accounts. In the written statement filed by the defendant it was contended that the suit is not properly valued and proper court-fee has not been paid. The trial court framed an issue as to whether the suit had been properly valued and proper court-fee had been paid. It answered the issue holding that the plaint has been properly valued and proper court-fee has been paid. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved that the defendant is liable to account and that the suit was barred by limitation, On an appeal by the plaintiff to the High Court, the High Court found that the plaint made it clear that apart from the money which the defendant is liable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from 22.1.1965 the amounts received from Alagappa. In paragraphs 6 and 7 the plaint refers to the plaintiff and the defendant retiring from the partnership and Alagappa taking the shares of the plaintiff and the defendant for a consideration of his paying equivalent to ₹ 16,12,000/- to each of the plaintiff and the defendant. In paragraph 7 it is stated that the defendant as plaintiff's agent received ₹ 16,12,000/-. Paragraph 8 refers to certain payments which the plaintiff received from the defendant. Paragraph 9 of the plaint states that the defendant as plaintiff's agent is bound to render true and correct account to the plaintiff of all the amounts received by him in the course of agency, to wit, from 22nd January, 1965 the amounts received from Alagappa. It may be noted that the reliefs sought for is for rendering true and correct account to the plaintiff of all the amounts received by him in the course of the agency. The Power of Attorney was given on 22nd January, 1965 and thus the relief is not confined to the amount payable by Alagappa alone. 4. In paragraph 10 which is not taken note of by the High Court the plaintiff alleged that on 2nd Septemb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken. The relief claimed for in the plaint in paragraph 14(a) of the plaint is for directing the defendant to render true and correct account of all 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 plaintiffs behalf as his agent including the amount recovered by him from Alagappa and pay the plaintiff what may be found due to him. This paragraph makes it clear that what was required was not only an account of the amount recovered by the defendant from Alagappa but also an account of all the transactions of the defendant as the plaintiffs agent from 22nd January, 1965. 6. A reading of the written statement also makes it clear that the plaint was understood by the defendant as a suit for accounting of his management as a power of attorney agent. In paragraph 7 of the written statement the defendant states that out of 6,50,000 dollars got for the plaintiffs one-fourth share, 40,000 dollars were invested in fixed deposit in plaintiffs name with the Indian Overseas Bank, Kuala Lumpur and 10,000 dollars in plaintiffs V. CT. M. Accounts on 10th April, 1965. On the same day the remainin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relief sought. In suits for accounts it is not possible for the plaintiff to estimate correctly the amount which he may be entitled to for, as in the present case, when the plaintiff asks for accounting regarding the management by a power of attorney agent, he might not know the state of affairs of the defendant's management and the amount to which he would be entitled to on accounting. But it is necessary that the amount at which he values the relief sought for should be a reasonable estimate. Section 35(1) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, XIV, of 1955, is as follows: In a suit for accounts, fee shall be computed on the amount sued for as estimated in the plaint. Sub-section (2) of Section 35 provides: Where the amount payable to the plaintiff as ascertained in the suit is in excess of the amount as estimated in the plaint, no decree directing payment of the amount as so ascertained shall be passed until the difference between the fee actually paid and the fee that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the amount as ascertained, is paid. If the additional fee is not paid within such time as the Court may fix, the decree sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
