MEENAKSHISUNDARAM GHETTIAR Vs. VENKATACHALAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special Leave Petn. (Civil ) No. 1021 of 1979 is filed by the plaintiff in the suit O. S. No. 83 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge Devakottai, against the two orders passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal No. 408 of 1972 holding that the suit had not been properly valued for court-fee and directing the petitioner to pay court-fee on the valuation of Rs. 9,74,598.35 and requiring that the deficit court-fee both on the plaint and the memorandum of appeal be paid within six weeks from the date of the order. On hearing the petitioner we directed notice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause why special leave should not be granted and the appeal allowed and remitted to the High Court for disposal of all the issues. On hearing the respondents we granted Special Leave Petition and the appeal is thus heard.

(2.) The appellant filed the suit praying for a decree against the respondent/defendant to render true and correct account of all the transactions of the respondent as the petitioners' agent from 22nd January, 1965 and also of all the amounts received by him as the agent of the petitioner including the amount recovered by him from Alagappa Chettia and pay to the petitioner the amount found due on such rendition of accounts. In the written statement filed by the defendant it was contended that the suit is not properly valued and proper court-fees has not been paid. The trail court framed an issue as to whether the suit had been properly valued and proper court-fee had been paid. It answered the issue holding that the plaint has been properly valued and proper court-fee has been paid. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff has not proved that the defendant is liable to account and that the suit was barred by limitation. On an appeal by the plaintiff to the High Court the High Court found that the plaint made it clear that apart from the money which the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff as his agent, the plaintiff has quantified the amount at Rs. 9,74,598.35 as payable by the defendant to him which is made clear in allegations in paras. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint and therefore the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit at Rupees 9,74,598.35. As the appeal was disposed of on the ground that the plaint had not been properly valued we are concerned in this petition in determining whether the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is correct.

(3.) The High Court has passed its conclusion on a reference to paras. 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint. We will now consider the pleadings in the case. In paragraph 5, it is stated that on 22nd January, 1965, the plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney at Karaikudi authorising the defendant to transact all his business, sell his properties, receive the sale price and other monies etc. This paragraph refers to the General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant an 22nd January, 1965. The terms of the power of attorney will be referred to in due course. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint which have been relied on by the High Court may be set out:-