ABDUL HAMID SHAMSI versus ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 12-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
- > 
--
·A, 
- . 
ABDUL HAMID SHAMSI 
v. 
ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS 
APRIL 12, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.] 
Court Fees Act, 1870. Section 7(iv)(b)-Suit for accounts-
Plaintiff not obliged to state exact amount that may result after taking all 
accounts-But not permitted to choose unreasonable and arbitrary 
figure-It is open to the Court to reject such figure, though ordinarily 
the Court does not examine the correctness of the valuation. 
The father and brothers of Respondent No. I were running a 
proprietary business, which was later converted into a partnership firm 
by a regular deed. On the de"ath of the father, the two brothers had 
eff~ctively taken control of the business and excluded Respondent No. 
A 
B 
c 
I. The suggestion to reconstitute the partnership made repeatedly by 
D 
Respondent No. I had been ignored. 
The two brothers represented before the Income Tax Officer that a 
uew deed of partnership had been executed on IS. I.1979 to be effective 
from I. J .1979 in which Respondent No. I had no interest and on that 
basis the Income Tax Officer passed an order. In the suit filed by 
Respondent No. I, he challenged the partnership deed as being illegal 
and void and prayed for a decree for dissolution of the partnership firm 
and for accounts. Valuation of the suit was put as Rs.ISO i.e., Rs.SO 
each for declaration, rendition of accounts, and for profit to the share 
of the plaintiff. Court fee was paid accordingly. 
The defendants in the suit denied the allegations made in the 
plaint and also challenged the valuation as being grossly undervalued 
and arbitrary. The issue relating to the correct valuation and pecuniary 
jurisdiction of the Court was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The 
defendants challenged the order by a Civil Revision Application which 
was dismissed by the High Court. 
This appeal by special leave is against the High Court's order. On 
behalf of the appellant, it was contended that while relief to the tune of 
lakhs of rupees had been claimed, the plaint had been tentatively valued 
for Rs.SO only, which is preposterous. The contention of Respondent 
E 
F 
G 
No. I was that a Plaintiff has the absolute right to put on the plaint any 
H 
507 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 3 S.C.R. 
A value he wishes and the court has no jurisdiction to examine the matter: 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: I. It is true that in a suit for accounts the correct amount 
payable by one party to the other can be ascertained only when the 
B accounts are examined and it is not possible to give an accurate valua-
tion of the claim at the inception of the suit. The plaintiff is, therefore, 
allowed to give his own tentative valuation. Ordinarily the Court shall 
not examine the correctness of the valuation chosen, but the plaintiff 
cannot act arbitrarily in this matter. If a plaintiff chooses whimsically a 
ridiculous figure it is tantamount to not exercising his right in this 
C regard. In such a case it is not only open to the Court hut its duty to 
reject such a valuation. [5120-E] 
2. In the instant case the valuation put by the plaintiff'·off the 
plaint is arbitrary and unacceptable. However, the question is remitted 
to the trial court for reconsideration. It is open to the trial court to take 
D into consideration the statement in the plaint that the plaintiff has been 
ousted from the partnership business. If the court comes to the conclu-
sion that the tentative valuation of the suit would he beyond its 
pecuniary jurisdiction, it shall pass an appropriate order under Order 
' -
VlloftheCodeofCivilProcedure. [512F-G] 
A 
~ 
E 
Smt. Tara Devi v. Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj, [1987] 4 
SCC 69; Meenakshisundaram Chettiar v. Venkatachalam Chettiar, 
[I 979 I 3 SCR 385, relied on. 
..._
Aizaz Ahmad v. Nazirul Hasan, AIR 1935 Allahabad 849; Attar 
Singh v. Manohar Singh, ILR (1947) Nagpur 933; Mata Ram v. Daulat 
F 
ILR (1938) Nagpur 588 (F.B.); Salahuddinhyder v. Dhanooliil, [1945] 
ILR XXIV Patna 334; Shama Pershad Sahi v. Sheopershad Singh XLI 
l.C. 95 (Patna); Gouri Lal and others v. Raja Babu, AIR 929 Patna 
616,approved. 
Krishnaji Hari v. Gopal Narayan. AIR 1936 Bombay 166 and 
G Ishwarappa v. Dhanji, AIR 1932 Bombay I II, overruled. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1004 
of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1987 of the High 
H 
Court of Calcutta in Civil Order No. 2506 of 1987. 
ABDUL HAMID v. ABDUL MAJID [SHARMA, J.] 
509 
S.N. Kack
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.