Dhupati Srinivasacharlu v. A. Perindevamma

Wallis, C.J:— The question that has been raised in this appeal is whether in a suit coming under clause (iv) of section 7 of the Court Fees Act, when the plaintiff has valued the relief prayed for and obtained a decree, in this instance a preliminary decree for an account, and the defendant appeals against the whole decree, he is bound by the valuation in the plaint as held in Samiya Mavali v. Minamnial(1), or is at liberty to make a fresh valuation for the purposes of the appeal. As we feel some doubt about the correctness of the decision and it is desirable that there should be an authoritative ruling on the point, we have decided to refer the above question to a Full Bench.

T.V Venhatarama Ayyar for the appellants.—Section 7 refers primarily to plaints only and not to memorandum of appeal except in clause (iv). Except in cases coming under clause (iv) the valuation in the plaint and in the memorandum of appeal is the same when the subject-matter of the appeal is the same as in the plaint. The value of the subject-matter is capable of valuation in all cases except in cases under clause (iv), section 7. In section 7, clause (v), in suits for pre-emption the valuation in appeal is the entire value in the lower Court though the appellant succeeded in a portion of his claim. In section 7 clause (vi), also the appeal must be valued in the same way as the suit. So also in suits between landlord and tenant, the memorandum of appeal bears the same stamp as in the plaint; so that in all cases except clause (iv) the value is the same in appeal and in suit. When the subject-matter is the same. Section 9 enables the Court to correct the valuation in certain cases but not in a case falling under section 7, clause (iv). The plaintiff's valuation is final. Valambal Ammal…(Plaintiff) v. Vythilinga Mudaliar…(Defendant) .* does not touch the question. Suppose the plaintiff prefers an appeal, in it open to him to alter the valuation? if not, how can a defendant alter? Balvant Ganesh v. Nana Chintamon(2) refers to the practice in Bombay. Reference was made to the following cases also:—Ramsarup v. Dasrat Tiwari(3), Mohamed Masik v. Malkhai Mukhadrai Uzwa Badsha Mehal Saheba(4), Bunwari Lal v. Daya Sunker Misser(5) and Bhagat Ram v. Gokal Chand(6). The Law in Madras has been what is laid down in Samiya Mavali v. Minammal(7); see also Delroos Banoo Begum v. Nawab Syud Ashgur Ally Khan(8).

K. Bhashyam Ayyangar for the respondents.—This is a fiscal enactment and must be strictly construed. The subject-matter in appeal must determine the valuation. The relief which is claimed is to get rid of a direction to account and this is different from the relief in the plaint. In the appeal from the preliminary decree it is open to the defendant to fix his own value. Reference under Court Fees Act, 1870(9), was referred to.

T.V Venkatarama Ayyar was not heard in reply.

This appeal coming on for hearing, the following opinion of the Court was delivered by

Wallis, C.J:— The decision in Samiya Mavali v. Minammal has been consistently acted on and is in accordance with the decision in Delroos Banoo Begum v. Nawab Syud Ashgur Ally Khan and Bunwari Lal v. Daya Sunker Misser.

We are not prepared to differ from it, and are of opinion accordingly that the appellant is bound by the valuation in the plaint.

C.M.N