1979 (2) TMI 213 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets aside judgment, remits case for valuation. Emphasizes duty to provide transaction details.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Madras High Court's judgment and remitting the case back for further consideration. It held that ... - Issues Involved:1. Proper valuation of the suit for court-fee.2. Liability of the defendant to render accounts.3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation.4. Interpretation of the Power of Attorney.5. Compliance with the statutory provisions regarding court-fee in suits for accounts.Detailed Analysis:Proper Valuation of the Suit for Court-Fee:The appellant challenged the High Court's decision that the suit was not properly valued for court-fee. The High Court directed the appellant to pay court-fee on the valuation of Rs. 9,74,598.35. The Supreme Court examined the pleadings, particularly paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the plaint, to determine whether the High Court's conclusion was correct. The Court noted that the plaintiff sought an account of all transactions made by the defendant as the plaintiff's agent from 22nd January 1965, not just the amount recovered from Alagappa. The Court concluded that the High Court misread the plaint and that the valuation provided by the plaintiff was neither inadequate nor unreasonable.Liability of the Defendant to Render Accounts:The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a decree for the defendant to render a true and correct account of all transactions conducted as the plaintiff's agent. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant's liability to account. The Supreme Court noted that the defendant, in his written statement, acknowledged receiving and managing funds on behalf of the plaintiff, which necessitated an accounting. The Court emphasized that the defendant's role as an agent required him to render accounts of all transactions, including the amounts received from Alagappa.Whether the Suit was Barred by Limitation:The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. However, the Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this issue in the judgment, focusing instead on the valuation and the necessity for the defendant to render accounts. The implication is that the question of limitation would be reconsidered upon remand to the High Court.Interpretation of the Power of Attorney:The plaintiff executed a General Power of Attorney on 22nd January 1965, authorizing the defendant to manage his business affairs. The Supreme Court reviewed the terms of the Power of Attorney, which granted extensive powers to the defendant, including managing properties, settling debts, and investing money. The Court concluded that the Power of Attorney required the defendant to render a full account of all transactions conducted under its authority, reinforcing the plaintiff's entitlement to an accounting.Compliance with Statutory Provisions Regarding Court-Fee in Suits for Accounts:The Court examined Section 7(iv)(f) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and Section 35 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, XIV of 1955. These provisions require the plaintiff to state the amount at which he values the relief sought and to pay court-fee based on that valuation. The Supreme Court highlighted that in suits for accounts, plaintiffs might not know the exact amount due and can provide a reasonable estimate. The Court found that the plaintiff's valuation was a genuine effort and not a deliberate underestimation. The Court cited a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which emphasized that plaintiffs must make a genuine effort to estimate their relief and not deliberately undervalue it.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court, and remitted the case back to the High Court for disposal of all issues arising in the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the valuation provided by the plaintiff was reasonable and that the High Court misread the plaint. The Court also emphasized the defendant's obligation to render a full account of all transactions conducted as the plaintiff's agent. The costs were ordered to abide by the result of the appeal.