Case: A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Meenakshisundaram Chettiar Vs. A.K.A.Ct.V.Ct. Venkatachalam Chettiar

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. 9, 74, 598.35 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 plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 16, 12, 000 paragraphs 10, 11 and 14(a) make it clear that the suit was for accounting not only regarding Rs. 16, 12, 000 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 as 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. 7. The provision relating to the levy of court-fee for a suit on accounts is found in Section 7(iv)(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 :- (iv) In suits - (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 defendants 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(l) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 14 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 amount to which the fee paid extends.While Section 35(l) permits the plaintiff to pay the court-fee on the amount estimated by him, sub-section (2) safeguards against the loss of revenue as it requires that no decree for any amount in excess of the amount as the 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 :- (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; 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 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 Chanchuram Reddy v. Kanupuru Chenchurami Reddy (ILR 1969 AP 1042 (FB), after elaborate consideration of the case law on the subject has rightly observed there must be a genuine effort on the part of plaintiff to estimate his relief and that the estimate should not be a deliberate underestimation. 8. 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 underestimation. 9.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]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 January 22, 19656. 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 April 10, 1965. On the same day the remaining 6, 00, 000 dollars were invested with Alagappa Chettiar himself who had credited the amount in plaintiffs 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. 9, 74, 598.35 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 plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 16, 12, 000 paragraphs 10, 11 and 14(a) make it clear that the suit was for accounting not only regarding Rs. 16, 12, 000 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 as 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, unsupportableReading 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 defendants 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 estimateA Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a decision in Chillakuru Chanchuram Reddy v. Kanupuru Chenchurami Reddy (ILR 1969 AP 1042 (FB), after elaborate consideration of the case law on the subject has rightly observed there must be a genuine effort on the part of plaintiff to estimate his relief and that the estimate should not be a deliberate underestimation8. 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 underestimation.