Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a partnership business originally owned by the father of the parties involved, which was later converted into a partnership firm. Following the father's death, the two brothers took control of the business, excluding the plaintiff, who sought to challenge the partnership deed and requested a decree for dissolution and accounts. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs.150, which the defendants contested as grossly undervalued. The High Court dismissed the defendants' challenge, leading to this appeal. The appellant contended that the plaintiff's valuation was preposterous given the claimed relief amounting to lakhs of rupees. The plaintiff argued for his right to choose any valuation, citing previous judgments. The Supreme Court held that while a plaintiff can provide a tentative valuation, it cannot be arbitrary. The court found the plaintiff's valuation unacceptable and remitted the issue back to the trial court for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a valuation that is not arbitrary or unreasonable. The appeal was allowed with costs payable by the plaintiff (Paras 509-513).
Headnote
The plaintiff in a suit for accounts is allowed to provide a tentative valuation, but cannot choose an arbitrary figure. The court has the duty to reject such valuations if they are unreasonable. The case was remitted to the trial court for reconsideration of the valuation (Paras 512D-G).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaintiff's valuation of the suit was arbitrary and whether the court had jurisdiction to examine it.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding the plaintiff's valuation arbitrary and unacceptable, and remitted the issue to the trial court for reconsideration, with costs payable by the plaintiff.
Law Points
- Tentative valuation
- arbitrary figure
- jurisdiction of court
- suit for accounts
- Court Fees Act
- 1870
