Civil Appeal No 504 of 1979
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 12 1978 of the High Court of Madras at Madras in Appeal No 40872
K Rajendra Chaudhary for the Appellant
A T M Sampath for the Respondent
A V Rangam for the Intervener
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM J
Special Leave Petition Civil No 1021 of 1979 is filed by the plaintiff in the suit OS No 83 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Devakottai against the two orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal No 408 of 1972 holding that the suit had not been properly valued for court fee and directing the petitioner to pay court fee on the valuation of Rs 97459835 and requiring that the deficit court fee both on the plaint and the memorandum of appeal be paid within six weeks from the date of the order
On hearing the petitioner we directed notice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause why special leave should not be granted and the appeal allowed and remitted to the High Court for disposal of all the issues
On hearing the respondents we granted Special Leave Petition and the appeal is thus heard
The appellant filed the suit praying for a decree against the respondentdefendant 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 con 387 tended 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 to pay to the plaintiff as his agent the plaintiff has quantified the amount at Rs 97459835 as payable by the defendant to him which is made clear in allegations in paragraphs 678 and 9 of the plaint and therefore the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit at Rs 97459835
As the appeal was disposed of on the ground that the plaint had not been properly valued we are concerned in this petition in determining whether the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is correct
The High Court has passed its conclusion on a reference to paragraph 678 and 9 of the plaint
We will now consider the pleadings in the case
In paragraph 5 it is stated that on 22nd January 1965 the plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney at Karaikudi authorising the defendant to transact all his business sell his properties receive the sale price and other monies etc
This paragraph refers to the General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 22nd January 1965
The terms of the power of attorney will be referred to in due course
Paragraphs 6 7 8 and 9 of the plaint which have been relied on by the High Court may be set out  6
On 27 3 1963 the Plaintiff and the Defendant retired from the said partnership and the other two brothers continued the business under the same name Alagappa taking on the shares of the plaintiff and Defendant and all their assets in the firm for a consideration of his paying  650000 equivalent to Rs 1612000 at the rate of Rs 248 per 100 Dollars to each of them so that Alagappa became entitled to 34 share and Annamalai to 14 share in the continuing firm
As the Plaintiff s agent and on behalf of the Plaintiff the Defendant on or about 13 4 1965 received from Alagappa  650000 equivalent to Rs 1612000 at the rate of 248 rupees per 100 Dollars for the 14th share of the Plaintiff in the said firm taken over by Alagappa
The Defendant from Madras has sent to the Plaintiff at Kottaiyer Rs 25000 on 25 10 1965 Rs 130750 on 388 7 2 1966 Rs 2531165 on 7 2 1965 Rs 25000 plus Rs 31165 for interest and Rs 436340 on 11 8 1967
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 the agency to wit 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 Rs 1612000 to each of the plaintiff and the defendant
In paragraph 7 it is stated that the defendant as plaintiff s agent received Rs 1612000 
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
In paragraph 10 which is not taken note of by the High Court the plaintiff alleged that on 2nd September 1967 and 4th October 1967 the plaintiff wrote to the defendant requiring him to send the accounts of the agency
These letters were refused
Again on 5th December 1967 the plaintiff issued a lawyer s notice to render accounts and for payment of the amounts due from him
This notice was also returned
The defendant did not render any accounts
At this stage reference may be made to the Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 22nd January 1965
The plaintiff by the Power of Attorney dated 22nd January 1965 constituted the defendant as his Attorney and authorised the defendant to act for the plaintiff
It is sufficient to state that the power authorises in general the defendant to manage all the affairs of the plaintiff
Paragraph 3 of the Power of Attorney empowers the defendant to pay and settle all the debts of the plaintiff and obtain full and effectual receipts and releases for the same
Paragraph 5 empowers the defendant amongst other things to sign and execute any discharge or release in connection with Charges or Bills of Sale
Paragraph 10 gives the power to the defendant to charge or mortgage any of the plaintiff s property and paragraph 11 to borrow such sums of money and upon such terms as the Attorney shall deem expedient
Paragraph 19 confers the power 389 on the defendant to invest moneys upon mortgages or charges of land etc
In short there can be no dispute that complete power of management is given to the defendant and the defendant could in exercising this power discharge debts invest moneys on behalf of the plaintiff etc
When the plaintiff in paragraph 7 of the plaint demanded the agent to render true and correct account to the plaintiff of all the amounts received by him in the course of agency ie by virtue of the power conferred on 22nd January 1965 the plaintiff is entitled to know as to what amounts the defendant received during the course of his management and what amounts he had invested or otherwise dealt with
At the date of the plaint the plaintiff was not aware as to the amount of moneys that were due by the defendant to him
The letters and the lawyer s notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant were unanswered
If the defendant had invested or otherwise dealt with moneys according to the power conferred on him nothing would be due to the plaintiff on accounts being taken
The relief claimed for in the plaint in paragraph 14a 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 plaintiff s 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 plaintiff s agent from 22nd January 1965
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 650000 dollars got for the plaintiff s one fourth share 40000 dollars were invested in fixed deposit in plaintiff s name with the Indian Overseas Bank Kuala Lumpur and 10000 dollars in plantiff s V CT
M Accounts on 10th April 1965
On the same day the remaining 600000 dollars were invested with Alagappa Chettiar himself who had credited the amount in plantiff s name in his accounts
If the defendant was able to prove these contentions the accounts as required by the plaintiff would have been satisfactorily rendered and very little would have been due by the defendant to the plaintiff on accounting
The High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that the plaint is clear that apart from the money which the defendant is liable to pay to him as his agent the plaintiff has quantified the amount at Rs 97459835 as payable by the defendant to him
In our view the plaint has been misread
Though paragraphs 6 7 and 8 refer to the transactions in which the 390 plaintiff is entitled to Rs 1612000 paragraphs 1011 and 14a make it clear that the suit was for accounting not only regarding Rs 1612000 but also for the management by the defendant as power of attorney agent
The power as already noted confers a right on the defendant to invest moneys
If the defendant has shown in the written statement itself is able to establish that in the course of his management he had invested moneys according to the power conferred on him he would have properly accounted for his management
In the written statement the defendant himself had pleaded that the moneys which he received from Alagappa have been remitted to the plaintiff by investment and otherwise
The conclusion arrived at by the High Court is therefore unsupportable
The provision relating to the levy of court fee for a suit on accounts is found in section 7iv f of the Court Fees  Act 1870 which runs as follows 7
The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows i x x x ii x x x iii x x x iv In suits a x x x b x x x c x x x d x x x e x x x f for accounts According to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal
In all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought
 Reading this provision by itself the amount of court fee payable in suits for accounts is according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal
The plaintiff is required to state the amount at which he values the 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 391 values the relief sought for should be a reasonable estimate
Section 351 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 shall be limited to the account to which the fee paid extends
 While section 351 permits the plaintiff to pay the court fee on the amount estimated by him sub section 2 safeguards against the loss of revenue for it requires that no decree for any amount in excess of the amount as estimated in the plaint shall be passed unless the difference between the fee actually paid and the fees that would have been payable had the suit comprised the whole of the amount as ascertained is paid
But here again it is necessary that the plaintiff should give a fair estimate of the amount for which he sues
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code requires the court to return the plaint if the relief claimed is undervalued
Order 7 Rule 11 runs thus 11
The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases a x x x b where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court fails to do so c x x x d x x x This section casts a duty on the Court to reject the plaint when the relief claimed is undervalued
If on the materials available before it the Court is satisfied that the value of relief as estimated by the plaintiff in a suit for accounts is undervalued the plaint is liable to be rejected
It is therefore necessary that the plaintiff should take care that the valuation is adequate and reasonable taking into account the circumstances of the case
In coming to the conclusion that the suit is undervalued the court will have to take into account that in a suit for 392 accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after the taking of the accounts
If he cannot estimate the exact amount he can put a tentative valuation upon the suit for accounts which is adequate and reasonable
The plaintiff cannot arbitrarily and deliberately undervalue the relief
A full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a decision in Chillakuru Chenchurami Reddy vs Kanupuru Chenchurami Reddy after elaborate consideration of the case law on the subject has rightly observed that there must be a genuine effort on the part of the plaintiff to estimate his relief and that the estimate should not be a deliberate under estimation
On a consideration of the entire circumstances of the case we are not satisfied that the estimate of the relief as given by the plaintiff is inadequate or unreasonable or a deliberate under estimation
In the result we allow the appeal set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court and remit it back to the High Court for disposal of all the issues arising in the appeal
The cost will abide by the result
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
The power of attorney by which the plaintiff constituted the defendant as his agent authorised the defendant amongst other things to discharge debts and invest moneys on behalf of the plaintiff
In the suit filed by the plaintiff the relief claimed was for directing the defendant to render true and correct accounts of all transactions entered into by him and for amounts received by him on behalf of the plaintiff
In his written statement the defendant gave details of amounts invested by him in banks and other relevant details
An issue whether the suit had been properly valued and proper court fee had been paid was answered by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff
On appeal by the plaintiff the High Court held that since the plaintiff had quantified the amount payable by the defendant the suit should have been valued on the basis of amount quantified and that not having been done the suit had not been properly valued
Allowing the appeal  HELD 1 The estimate of the relief as given by the plaintiff was adequate and reasonable and was not an under estimate
392C 2 The High Court was in error in holding that the plaint was clear that apart from the money which the defendant was liable to pay to him as his agent the plaintiff had quantified the amount payable by the defendant
The suit was not only for accounting of the amounts received but also for an account of the transactions of the defendant as power of attorney agent
Had the defendant been able to establish that in the course of his management he had invested moneys according to the power of attorney he would have properly accounted for his management
The defendant himself had stated that the suit was for accounting of his management as power of attorney agent
He pleaded that the moneys had been remitted to the plaintiff by investment or otherwise
389H 390B 3 The amount of the court fee payable in suits for accounts as provided for in section 7ivf of the Court Fees Act 1870 is according to the amount at which relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal
In a suit for accounts it is not possible for the plaintiff to estimate correctly the amount which he may be entitled to because in a suit in which 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
390G H 386 4 Even where section 35 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1955 is applicable it is necessary that the plaintiff should give a fair estimate of the amount for which he seeks relief
Order VII R 11 CPC casts a duty on the court to reject a plaint when the relief claimed is under valued
391 D E Chillakuru Chenchurami Reddy vs Kanupuru Chenchurami Reddy ILR  approved
5 Before coming to the conclusion that the suit is under valued the court will have to take into account that in a suit for accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after taking all the account
If he cannot estimate the exact amount he can put a tentative valuation upon the suit for accounts which is adequate and reasonable
The plaintiff cannot arbitrarily and deliberately under value the relief
All that is required is that there must be a genuine effort on the part of the plaintiff to estimate his relief and the estimate should not be a deliberate under estimation
391 H 392 B