Sokkammal vs Arunachalam Pillai and Others

Byers, J.—The plaintiff attained majority in 1939 and, after securing from the Court an assignment of the security bond which was taken

from his guardian appointed by the Court, he has brought a suit for accounts and for the recovery of sums found to have been misapplied or

misappropriated.

Mr. A. Swaminatha Aiyar rightly points out that as accounts have already been furnished to the District Court by his guardian and examined by

auditors he cannot now sue for accounts but can sue only on the accounts already furnished for the recovery of what is payable after surcharging

and falsifying. He valued his plaint at the notional figure of Rs. 200 and paid court-fee accordingly. In several paragraphs of his plaint he gave

details of amounts misapplied and misappropriated, and these sums amount approximately to Rs. 5,800.

If his suit is for accounts he need not specify the amount he expects to receive; it is sufficient to pay court-fees on the relief of accounting and to

pay court-fees later on the amount found due. But where the suit is to surcharge and falsify accounts already furnished and to recover specific

sums, the plaintiff must value and stamp his plaint accordingly on an ad valorem basis. It follows that the lower Court had no jurisdiction and the

plaint must be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The petitioner will have her costs in this Court.