JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the primary decree for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts in favour of the plffs-respondents. The suit was valued at a sum of Rs. 21,216 and odd for purposes of court-fees. The defts. denied the partnership and their liability to render accounts. They now file this appeal and have paid court-fee of Rs. 10 only and a preliminary objection is raised by the respondents regarding it urging that the court-fee should be paid as on the plaint. 2. The point for determination is what is the proper court-fee on the memorandum of appeal by the defts. challenging the preliminary decree declaring the existence of partnership which was denied by them and for rendition of accounts? Is it on the valuation of the plaint under S. 7 (iv) (f) or as fixed under Sch. II, Art. 17, Cl. (vi), Court-fees Act? On behalf of the appellants it is urged that it is not possible to assess the value of the decree and therefore the fixed court-fee alone could be paid. On the other side it is urged that it should be paid on the valuation of the plff's suit the decree in which is sought to be wholly set aside. 3. Section 7, Para (iv), Cl. (f) runs as below :- "In suits for account according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal : In all such suits the plff. shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought." It would thus appear that it is only the plff. who has been given a right under the law to state the amount at which he values the relief. Schedule II, Art. 17 (vi) runs as below : "Plaint or memorandum of appeal in each of the following suits :- Clauses (i) to (v). ... Clause (vi) - every other suit where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act.....Rs. Ten." It would then appear that it has been held in several decisions of the different High Courts that even under S. 7 (iv) (f), the plff. ... Clause (vi) - every other suit where it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute and which is not otherwise provided for by this Act.....Rs. Ten." It would then appear that it has been held in several decisions of the different High Courts that even under S. 7 (iv) (f), the plff. is not left to his own arbitrary valuation of the claims, but is liable to put up a reasonable valuation in the light of the allegations in the plaint. Reference in this connection may be made to Attar Singh v. Manohar Singh, ILR (1947) Nag 933. In that case it has been observed : "The Court will not ordinarily correct the plff's valuation except in a clear case where the disparity is so great as to show that the plff. has not endeavoured to fix a fair value at all but has simply set down a figure which is unreasonable and bears no relation to the value of the right litigated. It is entitled to reject the plaint if the plff's valuation is arbitrary and unreasonable and leave the plff. to correct the valuation or to have the plaint rejected." It is thus obvious that the question of proper valuation of a claim for purposes of court-fees cannot be divested from the other allegations in the plaint. In the case on hand, the plffs. stated that in view of the statement as contained in the note of Diwali of 1946, they considered that a sum of over Rs. 21,000 may be due to them. The defts. denied the fact of partnership and their liability to render accounts, but defendant 1 admitted the execution of the note while the other defts. have not specifically denied it. It may be noted that none of them has challenged the valuation of the suit as made by the plffs. for the purpose of court-fees. 4. Now the question is whether in these circumstances the defts, can urge that the valuation of the preliminary decree dissolving the partnership and ordering the defts. to render accounts could not be assessed. In my opinion, the contention cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the defts. challenging the preliminary decree in such suits, have to put up the same value in the appeal as in the plaint. 5. to render accounts could not be assessed. In my opinion, the contention cannot be accepted. Even otherwise, the defts. challenging the preliminary decree in such suits, have to put up the same value in the appeal as in the plaint. 5. The appellants' learned counsel referred to the decision in Nanhesingh v. Ram Narain, AIR 1941 Oudh 622, where it is observed : "In an appeal against a preliminary decree for accounts in a suit for profits it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute, the only question in appeal being whether the appellant is liable to render accounts, there being no decree against him for any specific amount." I have perused the judgment and it appears that it was not a suit for rendition of accounts and this has been specifically pointed out. In regard to the question on hand, there is no discussion in support of the observation : "I think it is not possible to estimate at a money value the subject-matter in dispute in the appeal filed in the lower court." Reference is then made to the decision in Kanhaiyalal v. Ram Sarup, AIR 1922 All 228. A perusal of the judgment in that case clearly shows that there the defts. had challenged the valuation of the claim for purposes of court-fees in the trial of the suit itself. This has been pointedly referred to in the observation : On the whole, taking the words of the Section as they stand, I think that the appellant is allowed the option of placing his own valuation upon the memorandum of appeal in a case like the present." It is thus clear that in that case the decision was as stated above because the defts. had challenged the valuation of the claim from the beginning. That is not so in the case on hand. 6. Reference was then made to the decision in Haridas v. Murli Prasad, AIR 1937 All 465, where it was held that "the valuation in the plaint was intended by the plff. to be a valuation of the final decree and not of the preliminary decree. If the deft. had appealed against the final decree, he would have to pay court-fee on whatever sum was found due to the plff. But as the deft. to be a valuation of the final decree and not of the preliminary decree. If the deft. had appealed against the final decree, he would have to pay court-fee on whatever sum was found due to the plff. But as the deft. had only appealed against the preliminary decree he was entitled to value that preliminary decree at any sum which he considered suitable." This case fully supports the appellants and there is an observation which indicates that in that suit the plffs. valued the claim at Rs. 2,1000/- for a final decree and not for a preliminary decree. I have perused the judgment and do not find anything in support of this observation. In my opinion, that was obviously a tentative value as near as possible to the claim. The decision does not follow the view as found in Srinivasacharlu v. Perindevamma, 39 Mad 725 (FB). 7. On the other side reference was made to the decision in Firm of Mahomed Rahmoo Mawji v. Ibrahim Gangji, AIR 1927 Sind 100, where it was held that : "Where the plff. has obtained a preliminary decree for an account and the deft. or the plff. appeals against the decree, the valuation once fixed by the plff. must be adhered to unless the subject-matter of the appeal is not identical with that of the suit in which case, of course, it is open to the appellant to value the subject-matter of the appeal differently and to pay court-fees thereon." The decision follows the case in Srinivasacharlu v. Perindevamma, 39 Mad 725 (FB) and a previous decision of the same High Court. In the decision in Kailash Chandra v. Narayan Chandra, AIR 1934 Cal 786 the same rule is laid down and it has been specifically pointed out that : "Where therefore a suit on accounts valued at as. 1,200/- is decreed for Rs. 9,154/- the appeal on such a decree should be valued at the enhanced sum." In the decision in Deoji Goa v. Tricumji Jivan Das, AIR 1935 Pat 396 (SB), it was observed that : "Where in a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts a preliminary decree is passed, the deft. is entitled to place his own valuation which is not arbitrary upon the memorandum of appeal and the court is bound to accept the memorandum at this valuation. is entitled to place his own valuation which is not arbitrary upon the memorandum of appeal and the court is bound to accept the memorandum at this valuation. But it does not preclude a court hereafter from deciding on sufficient materials that the memorandum has in fact been undervalued and calling upon the deft. to correct his valuation." The whole case-law has been discussed at length and though at the beginning it appears that the observations supported the valuation under Sch. II Art. 17 (vi), in the end reverted to the position that in such a case though the deft. values the memorandum of appeal at his own choice, still he could be called upon to pay the full court-fees on the ground that the memorandum has been undervalued, the best material in support of such order being the valuation and the allegations in the plaint. The decisions in (1) Malik Feroz Din v. Malik Mohd Din AIR 1937 Lah 694 and (2) In re Dhannu Kodi Navakkar, AIR 1938 Mad 435 (FB) fully support the contention of the respondents and it has been held that in such cases the court-fee is to be paid on the valuation as found in the plaint. 8. In Sheoram Sitaram v. Atma Ram Raghoji, AIR 1943 Nag 13, it has been held, following the decision in Malik Feroz Din v. Malik Mohd. Din, AIR 1937 Lah 694 that : "Where plff's suit for partnership accounts in the trial court was valued at Rs. 5250, for purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee, and it is against the decree passed in such a suit that an appeal is filed claiming dismissal of the suit in its entirely, the same valuation continues throughout the litigation and the deft.-appellant has no right to value the relief arbitrarily at a lesser figure." It would thus appear that all the High Courts above referred to have consistently followed the decision in Srinivasacharlu v. Perindevamma, 39 Mad 725 (FB) and it has been held that once the valuation for the suit is accepted or decided, that valuation would continue for the purposes of court-fees for all the proceedings taken in the suit as also in the subsequent proceedings. I, therefore, find that the defts. in this appeal have to pay the same court-fees for their appeal as paid on the plaint under S. 7 (iv) (f), Court-fees Act. 9. I, therefore, find that the defts. in this appeal have to pay the same court-fees for their appeal as paid on the plaint under S. 7 (iv) (f), Court-fees Act. 9. It is, therefore, ordered that the appellants shall pay additional court-fee to make up the total court-fee as required above. As the learned Counsel for the appellant prayed for time to make up the deficiency, if any, it is ordered that it he made up on or before 4-12-51. Ordered accordingly.