Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

First Appeal No. 19 of 1959, against order of Munsiff, Sopore

Attorney(S)

Sunder Lal
Satyapal
J.N.Bhan

Judges

Hon'ble Sh. Justice K.V. Gopala Krishnan Nair
Hon'ble Sh. Justice Janki Nath Wazir

Acts

SECTION 8 SUITS VALUATION ACT
provisions of the Civil Courts Act.22.
Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act.
COURT FEES ACT

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Gopalakrishnan Nair, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a defendant's first appeal arising from a final decree passed by the Munsiff at Sopore in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff valued the relief for accounts in the plaint at Rs. 1,000 under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act. A preliminary decree was passed on 30-7-1958 and a final decree on 14-3-1959. The final decree awarded Rs. 3,203 to the plaintiff against the defendant. The defendant (appellant) challenged the final decree by way of appeal to this Court. The plaintiff-respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal in this Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the forum of appeal in an accounts suit is determined by the amount at which the plaintiff values the relief in the plaint (under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act and Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act) or by the amount awarded in the final decree.
Whether the court-fee payable ad valorem on the amount of a final decree in an appeal alters the jurisdictional value of the suit (i.e., whether the amount for which court-fee is paid on appeal becomes the value for purposes of jurisdiction).

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff-Respondent's Arguments

Objected to the maintainability of the appeal in this Court.
Argued that the amount at which the plaintiff valued the relief in the plaint should determine the forum of appeal, not the amount finally decreed.

Defendant-Appellant's Arguments

Contended that the forum of appeal should be determined by the amount for which the final decree is passed in an accounts suit, not by the original valuation in the plaint.
Asserted that the plaintiff's original valuation under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act is only a tentative valuation and that the "real and correct" value is the amount finally decreed.
Relied on the fact that court-fee on an appeal against a final decree is payable ad valorem on the amount of the decree and argued that this implies that the decree amount should determine jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kalu Ram v. Hanwant Ram, AIR 1934 Lah 488 (Full Bench)	Held that in suits for recovery of money on unsettled accounts the value is the value given in the plaint unless enhanced by adjudication; if adjudicated higher, that higher sum becomes the value for court-fee and jurisdiction.	The Court explicitly rejected this view with respect; the opinion does not accept the Kalu Ram Full Bench rationale.
Putta Kannayya Chetti v. Rudrabhatla Venkata Narasayya, ILR 40 Mad 1 : AIR 1918 Mad 998 (Full Bench)	Held that the value as given in the plaint in an accounts suit should determine the court to which the appeal lies.	The Court approved and followed this view and stated it need not repeat the reasons set forth by the Madras Full Bench.
Ijjatulla Bhuiyan v. Chandra Mohan Banerjee, ILR 34 Cal 954 (Full Bench)	Adopted a contrary view (to Madras Full Bench); impliedly supported the principle that the value might change on adjudication.	The Court stated that the contrary view in ILR 34 Cal 954 (FB) cannot be accepted and agreed with reasons adopted by the Madras Full Bench against it.
Bidyadhar Bachar v. Manindra Nath Das, AIR 1925 Cal 1076 : ILR 53 Cal 14 (Full Bench)	Recorded as having taken a view contrary to ILR 34 Cal 954 (FB) (i.e., did not follow the earlier Calcutta Full Bench).	The Court noted this conflicting authority in Calcutta; the opinion records the existence of the conflict but aligns with the Madras view rather than the ILR 34 Cal 954 view.
Madho Das v. Ramji Pathak, ILR 16 All 286	Listed among Allahabad High Court decisions relevant to valuation in accounts suits (context indicates support for the Madras view).	The Court noted that the Allahabad High Court took a view consonant with the Madras Full Bench.
Sudarshan Daj Shashtri v. Ram Prasad, ILR 33 All 97	Listed as an Allahabad decision consonant with the Madras Full Bench principle.	The Court recorded it as agreeing with the Madras view.
Muhammad Abdul Majid v. Ala Baksh, AIR 1925 All 376 : ILR 47 All 534	Another Allahabad decision stated to be in consonance with the Madras Full Bench.	The Court recorded it as supporting the Madras view.
Ishwarappa v. Dhanji Bhanji, AIR 1932 Bom 111 : ILR 56 Bom 23	Bombay High Court decision adopting the Madras Full Bench view that the plaint valuation determines the court of appeal in accounts suits.	The Court noted Bombay High Court adopted the Madras view and treated it as supportive authority.
Samdu Khan v. Madanlal, AIR 1959 Raj 101	Rajasthan High Court decision preferring to follow the Madras view.	The Court cited this as another court preferring the Madras Full Bench principle.
Ganga Ram v. Madan Lal Kapur, 11 J & K LR 107 : AIR 1953 J & K 13 (Divisional Bench)	Local (Jammu & Kashmir) Division Bench decision following ILR 40 Mad 1 (AIR 1918 Mad 998) Full Bench.	The Court noted its own Division Bench had followed the Madras Full Bench and treated that local precedent as consistent authority.
Ghulab Singh v. Harbans Lal, 38 Pun LR (J & K) 88	Earlier Division Bench decision of the Court taking the same view as the Madras Full Bench.	The Court recorded this earlier decision as having taken the same view and relied upon the continuity of local precedent.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeds from statutory construction and practical considerations:

Statutory framework: Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act gives the plaintiff discretion to value the relief sought for purposes of court-fees; the Court-fees Act contains various modes of valuation for different classes of suits, and suits under Section 7(iv)(f) fall into the category in which the plaintiff is permitted to adopt his own valuation.
Relationship with the Suits Valuation Act: Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act makes the value given in the plaint the value for purposes of jurisdiction. The Court interprets Section 8 as fixing the plaint valuation also as the jurisdictional value in an accounts suit.
Rejection of "real value" theory: The Court finds no warrant in the Court-fees Act for treating the plaint valuation as merely tentative and rejects the appellant's contention that the "real and correct" value is the amount ultimately found due by the court. It emphasizes that the statute recognizes the plaintiffs' stated value as the determinative figure.
Practical and policy considerations: The Court stresses the need for stability in valuation. If jurisdiction and the forum of appeal were to depend on amounts finally adjudicated, litigation and appeals would become entangled in "needless difficulties and complications" because the true "real" amount may only be known after final adjudication, possibly by the last court of appeal.
Avoidance of anomalies: The Court explains anomalies that would arise if final decree amount governed (for example, different forums for appeal between plaintiff and defendant, or preliminary vs final decree appeals lying to different appellate courts). These anomalies support treating the plaint valuation as the stable, controlling figure.
Distinction between court-fee valuation of an appeal and jurisdictional valuation: The Court draws a clear distinction — court-fee on appeal is determined by the subject-matter of the appeal (e.g., ad valorem on decree), but jurisdiction is determined by the value of the suit as stated in the plaint (per Section 8). The court-fee payable on an appeal does not alter the jurisdictional value.
Reliance on authorities: The Court aligns with the Madras Full Bench decision (Putta Kannayya Chetti) and interconnected line of authorities (including several High Courts and its own prior Bench decisions) that support using the plaint valuation to determine the forum of appeal; it rejects contrary Full Bench authority from Lahore and the competing Calcutta Full Bench view represented by ILR 34 Cal 954 (FB).
Conclusion of application: Applying the statutory interpretation and these practical considerations, the Court concludes that the jurisdictional value — and therefore the proper forum for appeal — is the value stated in the plaint, not the amount finally awarded by the decree.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Court held that the value stated in the plaint (the jurisdictional valuation under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act and Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act) determines the forum of appeal in an accounts suit; the amount awarded by the final decree does not change the jurisdictional value for purposes of determining the proper appellate forum.

Disposition and Immediate Consequences:

The Court concluded that the present appeal ought to have been presented to the District Court and not to this Court.
The appeal as presented to this Court was returned for presentation to the proper court (the District Court).
The appellant was ordered to pay Rs. 35 as costs to the respondent.
The formal order concluded: "Order accordingly."

Broader Implications: The decision reaffirms the principle — as adopted by the Madras Full Bench and several other High Courts and prior benches of this Court — that the plaint valuation is the stable, controlling figure for jurisdiction and the forum of appeal in accounts suits. The opinion relies on existing authorities and statutory interpretation rather than purporting to create a novel principle; its effect is to confirm and apply the existing line of authority favoring plaint valuation as determinative for jurisdiction.

This summary is based exclusively on the text of the provided opinion. No information beyond that text has been added.

Show full summary ...

Ahad Mir v. Mahda Bhat .

Gopalakrishnan Nair, J.:— This is a defendant's first appeal. It arises out of a final decree passed by the Munsiff at Sopore in a suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. The relief for accounts was valued in the plaint at Rs. 1000/- under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act. A preliminary decree was passed on 30-7-1958 and was followed by a final decree on 14-3-1959. The final decree awarded a sum of Rs. 3203/- to the plaintiff against the defendant. The defendant who is aggrieved by this final decree has come up in appeal to this court.

2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal in this court. He has argued that the amount at which the plaintiff valued the relief sought by him in the plaint should determine the forum of appeal and not the amount which was finally decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the defendant-appellant urged, on the other hand, that it is the amount for which a final decree is passed in a suit for accounts that should determine the course of appeal and not the original valuation which the plaintiff chose to put upon the plaint. This original valuation is said to be merely a tentative valuation and that the real and correct value is the amount for which the final decree is passed. Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act gives an unfettered discretion to the plaintiff to value the relief sought by him at an amount of his choice. The value so adopted by him will be the proper value for purposes of court-fees. Under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act the same will be the value for purposes of jurisdiction also. The argument on behalf of the appellant is that the value put upon the plaint under S. 7(iv)(f) is only a tentative value and not the real value. There does not appear to be any warrant in the Court-fees Act for such a proposition. A perusal of the various provisions of the Court-fees Act discloses that in a considerable class of important suits, as for example, suits for land, it is not the real value of the subject-matter of the suit that is made the basis of valuation for purposes of court-fees. In some cases the value is fixed; in other cases a particular mode of computation is prescribed for ascertaining the value for purposes of court-fees. And in yet another class of cases the plaintiff is given the discretion to adopt his own valuation. Suits falling under Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court-fees Act belong to the last category.

3. There is nothing in the Court-fees Act to indicate that the amount at which the plaintiff values his relief in an account suit is only a tentative value. On the other hand, a true construction of S. 7(iv)(f) appears to be that the amount at which the relief sought by the plaintiff is valued in the plaint in an account suit is the only valuation of that suit for purposes of court-fees, and according to Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act that is the only value for purposes of jurisdiction. It, therefore, appears to be all too unnecessary to ascertain what the learned counsel for the appellant would call “the real value” of the relief sought in the plaint.

4. We are concerned with the value which the statute recognizes and not with the so-called “real value”. Furthermore, if we are to go by the real value and not by the value stated in the plaint, the entire process of litigation including appeals is likely to get involved in needless difficulties and complications. For, if we presume that the real value of the relief sought by the plaintiff in an account suit is the amount which may ultimately be found by the court to be due to the plaintiff, we shall be able to know that final amount only after the pronouncement of the last court of appeal.

5. It is obvious that determination of the court of first instance or the court of first appeal cannot possibly be made to depend upon the final adjudication of the amount by the court of the last resort. It is also possible that an appeal against the preliminary decree may lie to one court of appeal, but the appeal against the final decree may lie to a higher court of appeal. There is also the possible anomaly of a defendant who appeals against the final decree being entitled to prefer one forum of appeal, whereas the appealing plaintiff may have to resort to a higher court of appeal.

6. These anomalies cannot be got rid of unless we adopt the value stated in the plaint as the value for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction, and as the value for determining the forum of appeal. The propriety, convenience and advantage of making the value of a suit a stable factor instead of a shifting quantity cannot be exaggerated. Any departure from this simple rule is bound to create difficulties of the nature indicated above. It is possible consistently to follow in all cases the rule that the value stated in the plaint should determine the forum of appeal.

7. But if the rule is that the amount of the final decree should decide the forum of appeal, that rule cannot consistently be adopted in all cases and in all circumstances. Suppose the plaintiff has valued the relief in an accounts suit at Rs. 10,000/- and a final decree is given only for Rs. 2,000/-. If the amount of the final decree is to decide the forum of appeal, the defendant who prefers the appeal must be held to be entitled to resort to the District Court in appeal. But if the plaintiff in that case wants to appeal, he will have to go to the High Court.

8. But it is argued that if the amount awarded by the final decree is less than the value stated in the plaint, the latter should decide the forum of appeal. It is however stated at the same time that if the amount of the final decree is larger than the value put upon the plaint, the former must determine the course of appeal. We find it difficult to find one consistent principle running through these propositions. Either the value stated in the plaint must be the uniform guide or the amount of the final decree must be the only criterion. We are unable to see either consistency or principle in saying that in certain cases the valuation in the plaint must be adopted as the basis and that in certain other cases the amount awarded by the final decree must form the basis.

9. No doubt, a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court in Kalu Ram v. Hanwant Ram, AIR 1934 Lah 488, has held that in suits for recovery of money on unsettled accounts the value of the subject-matter of the original suit is the value as given in the plaint unless it is enhanced by an adjudication of the court that a higher sum is due in which case it is the latter sum which becomes the value on which court-fee is computed and which therefore is the proper value for purposes of jurisdiction. With utmost deference, we find ourselves unable to accept this view.

10. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Putta Kannayya Chetti v. Rudrabhatla Venkata Narasayya, ILR 40 Mad 1 : (AIR 1918 Mad 998 (2)), has clearly held that the value as given in the plaint in an accounts suit should determine the court to which the appeal lies.

11. It is not necessary for us to reiterate the several cogent and convincing reasons in support of this view of the Madras High Court: they have been set forth in the order of reference to the Full Bench. The order of reference amply states the reasons why the contrary view adopted in Ijjatulla Bhuiyan v. Chandra Mohan Banerjee, ILR 34 Cal 954 (FB), cannot be accepted. We are in respectful agreement with those reasons.

12. We may point out that a later Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Bidyadhar Bachar v. Manindra Nath Das, AIR 1925 Cal 1076 : ILR 53 Cal 14 (FB), has taken a view contrary to that expressed in ILR 34 Cal 954 (FB).

13. The Allahabad High Court in Madho Das v. Ramji Pathak, ILR 16 All 286; Sudarshan Daj Shashtri v. Ram Prasad, ILR 33 All 97 and Muhammad Abdul Majid v. Ala Baksh, AIR 1925 All 376 : ILR 47 All 534, has taken a view in consonance with that adopted by the Madras High Court in ILR 40 Mad 1 : (AIR 1918 Mad 998 (2)) (FB).

14. In Ishwarappa v. Dhanji Bhanji, AIR 1932 Bom 111 : ILR 56 Bom 23, the Bombay High Court also has adopted the Madras view.

15. The Rajasthan High Court in Samdu Khan v. Madanlal, AIR 1959 Raj 101, has preferred to follow the Madras view.

16. Coming to our High Court, in Ganga Ram v. Madan Lal Kapur, 11 J and K LR 107 : (AIR 1953 J and K 13), a Divisional Bench has followed ILR 40 Mad 1 : (AIR 1918 Mad 998 (2)) (FB). An earlier Division Bench of this Court in Ghulab Singh v. Harbans Lal, 38 Pun LR (J and K) 88 also took the same view.

17. Thus for well over 23 years the view of this Court has been the same as that of the Madras High Court. We find no reason to doubt the correctness or the soundness of this view which so far as this State is concerned has come to slay.

18. The learned counsel for the appellant has put forward a somewhat ambitious argument based on Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. He argued that in an appeal by the defendant against a final decree in an accounts suit court-fee has to be paid ad valorem on the amount of the decree and that, therefore, that amount will be the value for purposes of jurisdiction also in view of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act. This argument overlooks the real scope and effect of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act.

19. There is a well-established and fundamental difference between the valuation of an appeal for purposes of court-fees and that for purposes of jurisdiction. For purposes of court-fees, it is the subject-matter of the appeal that has to be considered, but for purposes of jurisdiction it is the value of the suit that has to be taken into account. The effect of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act, so far as an accounts suit is concerned, is that the value given in the plaint is also the value for pur-poses of jurisdiction.

20. This jurisdictional value will equally apply to an appeal. But the value of an appeal for purposes of court-fees may be different. That circumstance will not have the effect of altering the value of the appeal for purposes of jurisdiction. It is, therefore, wrong to say that the value for purposes of jurisdiction in respect of an appeal will depend upon the value of the appeal for purposes of court-fees. The true effect and purport of Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act is to fix the same value for purposes of jurisdiction in respect of the suit as well as the appeal.

21. It does not, therefore, avail the appellant to say that as he had to pay court-fees in me appeal on the amount of the final decree, that amount must decide the value of the appeal for purposes of jurisdiction also. The correct position, as we already indicated, is that the jurisdictional value of the suit will be the jurisdictional value of the appeal as well. The forum of appeal has to be determined on the basis of the jurisdictional value stated in the plaint and in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Courts Act.

22. In view of the foregoing, we are dearly of the opinion that the appeal ought to have been presented to the District Court and not to this Court. The appeal is, therefore, returned for presentation to the proper court. The appellant will pay a sum of Rs. 35/- as costs to the respondent.

BD/K.S.B

23. Order accordingly.

Ahad Mir v. Mahda Bhat .

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Gopalakrishnan Nair, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff-Respondent's Arguments

Defendant-Appellant's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ahad Mir v. Mahda Bhat .

Comments