A.K.A.CT.V.CT. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM CHETTIAR versus A.K.A.CT.V.CT. VENKATACHALAM CHETTIAR

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 385 · Decided: 23-02-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
• 
• 
.. 
A.K.A.CT.V.CT. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM CHETTIAR 
v. 
A.K.A.CT.V.CT. VENKATACHALAM CHETTIAR 
February 23, 1979 
385 
A 
[R. S. SARKARIA, P. S. KAILASAM AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Courl Fee.J Act, 1870-S. 7(iv) (/)-Suit for accounts--l\recessary for plain-
tiff to give fair estimate of the amount for which he sues-Court can reject the 
plaint under Or. Vil r. 11 C.P.C. if plaintiff arbitrarily and deliberately under-
values the relief. 
The power of attorney by which the plaintiff constituted the defendant as 
his agent, authorised the defendant amongst other things to discharge debt! 
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 
ao;.counts of all transactions entered into by him and for amounts received by 
him on behalf of the plaintiff. 
In his written statement the defendant gavo 
details of amounts invested by him in banks and other relevant details. 
c 
An issue whether the suit had been properly valued and proper court-fee 
D 
ha<l 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 amouni 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 . 
Allowin2 the appeal, 
HELD: (1) The estittnlte of the relief as given by the plaintiff '"a~ adequate 
and reasonable and was not an under-estimate. 
{392C] 
(2) The High Court was in error in holding that thet plaint was clea-r, 
that apart from the money which the defendant was liable to pay to him as 
E 
his agent the plaintifl' had quantified the' amount payable by the defend>nt. The 
F 
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 
Miit was for accounting 
0of his management as power of attorney agent. 
He 
pleaded that the moneys had been remitted to the plaintiff by investment or 
G 
<>therwise. 
[389H-390B] 
(3) The. amount of the court-fee payable in suits for accounts as provided 
for in s. 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 is according to the amount at 
which relief sought i!ll 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 <\Sb 
H 
for accounting regarding the mana.gcmcnt 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 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 3 s.c.R. 
A 
(4) Even where s. 35 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation 
Act, 1955 is applicable, it is necessa.ry that the plaintiff should give· a fair 
estimate of the amount for which he seeks relief. 
Order VII H.. 11 CPO casts 
a duty on the court to reject a plaint when the relief claimed is under-valued. 
[391 D-E] 
Chillakuru Chenchurami Reddy v. Kanupuru Chenchuran1i Reddy, I.L.R. 
B 
1969 AP. 1042 (F.B. ), approved. 
0 
D 
E 
G 
H 
(5) Before corning to the conclusion that the suit is under-valued the cou·:t 
will have to take into account that in a suit for accounts the plaintiff is not 
obliged to state the exact amount which \Vould result after taking all the 
account. 
If he Cannot estimate th_e' exact amount he can put a tentative valua-
tion 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 Bl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 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. 408/72. 
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 
KAIL

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.