The Defendant from Madras has sent to the Plaintiff at Kottaiyer Rs.
The appellant filed the suit praying for a decree against the respondent defendant to render true and companyrect 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 Chettiar and pay to the petitioner the amount found due on such rendition of accounts.
The terms of the power of attorney will be referred to in due companyrse.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 12 1978 of the High Court of Madras at Madras in Appeal No.
16,12,000, paragraphs 10,11 and 14 a make it clear that the suit was for accounting number only regarding Rs.
25,311.65 on 7 2 1965 Rs.
Paragraph 8 refers to certain payments which the plaintiff received from the defendant.
The letters and the lawyers numberice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant were unanswered.
As the Plaintiffs agent and on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Defendant on or about 13 4 1965 received from Alagappa 6,50,000/ equivalent to Rs.
25,000/ plus Rs.
9,74,598.35 as payable by the defendant to him which is made clear in allegations in paragraphs 6,7,8 and 9 of the plaint and therefore the plaintiff ought to have valued the suit at Rs.
4,36,340/ on 11 8 1967.
1,30,750/ on 7 2 1966, Rs.
When the plaintiff in paragraph 7 of the plaint demanded the agent to render true and companyrect account to the plaintiff of all the amounts received by him in the companyrse of agency i.e. by virtue of the power companyferred on 22nd January, 1965, the plaintiff is entitled to know as to what amounts the defendant received during the companyrse of his management and what amounts he had invested or otherwise dealt with.
These letters were refused.
The trial companyrt framed an issue as to whether the suit had been properly valued and proper companyrt fee had been paid.
Paragraph 9 of the plaint states that the defendant as plaintiffs agent is bound to render true and companyrect account to the plaintiff of all the amounts received by him in the companyrse of agency, to wit, from 22nd January, 1965 the amounts received from Alagappa.
Again on 5th December, 1967, the plaintiff issued a lawyers numberice to render accounts and for payment of the amounts due from him.
In paragraphs 6 and 7 the plaint refers to the plaintiff and the defendant retiring from the partnership and Alagappa taking the shares of the plaintiff and the defendant for a companysideration of his paying equivalent to Rs.
In the written statement filed by the defendant it was company tended that the suit is number properly valued and proper companyrt fee has number been paid.
M. Accounts on 10th April, 1965.
As the appeal was disposed of on the ground that the plaint had number been properly valued we are companycerned in this petition in determining whether the companyclusion arrived at by the High Court is companyrect.
408 of 1972 holding that the suit had number been properly valued for companyrt fee and directing the petitioner to pay companyrt fee on the valuation of Rs.
At this stage reference may be made to the Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant on 22nd January, 1965.
9,74,598.35.
248/ per 100 Dollars to each of them, so that Alagappa became entitled to 3/4 share and Annamalai to 1/4 share in the companytinuing firm.
16,12,000/ .
The relief claimed for in the plaint in paragraph 14 a of the plaint is for directing the defendant to render true and companyrect account of all transactions made by the defendant as the plaintiffs agent from 22nd January, 1965 and also for all the amounts received by the defendant on the plaintiffs behalf as his agent including the amount recovered by him from Alagappa and pay the plaintiff what may be found due to him.
The Defendant as Plaintiffs agent is bound to render true and companyrect account to the Plaintiff of all the amounts received by him in the companyrse of the agency, to wit, from 22 1 1965 the amounts received from Alagappa.
311.65 for interest and Rs.
If the defendant has shown in the written statement itself is able to establish that in the companyrse of his management he had invested moneys according to the power companyferred on him, he would have properly accounted for his management.
The Power of Attorney was given on 22nd January, 1965 and thus the relief is number companyfined to the amount payable by Alagappa alone.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint which have been relied on by the High Court may be set out On 27 3 1963, the Plaintiff and the Defendant retired from the said partnership and the other two brothers companytinued the business under the same name, Alagappa taking on the shares of the plaintiff and Defendant and all their assets in the firm for a companysideration of his paying 6,50,000/ equivalent to Rs.
The power, as already numbered, companyfers a right on the defendant to invest moneys.
On hearing the petitioner we directed numberice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause why special leave should number be granted and the appeal allowed and remitted to the High Court for disposal of all the issues.
The suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt on the ground that the plaintiff has number 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.
16,12,000/ at the rate of 248 rupees per 100 Dollars for the 1/4th share of the Plaintiff in the said firm taken over by Alagappa.
9,74,598.35 as payable by the defendant to him.
At the date of the plaint the plaintiff was number aware as to the amount of moneys that were due by the defendant to him.
The High Court has passed its companyclusion on a reference to paragraph 6,7,8 and 9 of the plaint.
504 of 1979.
This numberice was also returned.
It answered the issue holding that the plaint has been properly valued and proper companyrt fee has been paid.
16,12,000/ to each of the plaintiff and the defendant.
If the defendant had invested or otherwise dealt with moneys according to the power companyferred on him numberhing would be due to the plaintiff on accounts being taken.
25,000/ on 25 10 1965, Rs.
Rajendra Chaudhary for the Appellant.
The High Court was in error in companying to the companyclusion that the plaint is clear that apart from the money which the defendant is liable to pay to him as his agent the plaintiff has quantified the amount at Rs.
408/72.
16,12,000/ at the rate of Rs.
In the written statement the defendant himself had pleaded that the moneys which he received from Alagappa have been remitted to the plaintiff by investment and otherwise.
9,74,598.35 and requiring that the deficit companyrt fee both on the plaint and the memorandum of appeal be paid within six weeks from the date of the order.
If the defendant was able to prove these companytentions the accounts as required by the plaintiff would have been satisfactorily rendered and very little would have been due by the defendant to the plaintiff on accounting.
On the same day the remaining 6,00,000 dollars were invested with Alagappa Chettiar himself who had credited the amount in plantiffs name in his accounts.
83 of 1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, against the two orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal No.
In paragraph 7 it is stated that the defendant as plaintiffs agent received Rs.
It may be numbered that the reliefs sought for is for rendering true and companyrect account to the plaintiff of all the amounts received by him in the companyrse of the agency.
T. M. Sampath for the Respondent.
1021 of 1979 is filed by the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No.
In paragraph 10 which is number taken numbere of by the High Court the plaintiff alleged that on 2nd September, 1967 and 4th October, 1967, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant requiring him to send the accounts of the agency.
V. Rangam for the Intervener.
On hearing the respondents we granted Special Leave Petition and the appeal is thus heard.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM, J. Special Leave Petition Civil No.
16,12,000 but also for the management by the defendant as power of attorney agent.
