James, J.The plaintiff in this suit, who is respondent to the present appeal, is a eon of the late Keolapat Sahu of Dinapore who died, according to the plaint, in the year 1907, On 15th February, 1908, Gauri Lal, a step-brother of Keolapat Sahu, was appointed guardian of the person and property of Raja Babu by the District Judge of Patna under the Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890). Raja Babu came of age on or about 3rd October, 1920, but Gauri Lal was not formally discharged from his guardianship until 29th January, 1923. He was then directed by the District Judge of Patna to make over to Raja Babu his property and his accounts. Raja Babu was not satisfied with his accounts, but in view of the fact that he had been already of age for over two years the District Judge did not himself scrutinize the accounts rendered by the guardian. On 1st October, 1923, Raja Babu instituted this suit praying for an account from Gauri Lal. Two brothers of Gauri Lal, named Hazari Lal and Thakur Prasad had executed a security bond when Gauri Lal was appointed guardian, and this bond had been in due course assigned by the District Judge to Raja Babu. These two sureties were accordingly joined as defendants, in order that they might be rendered liable for any amount by which Gauri Lal might be found in default up to Rs. 3,000, the amount of the bond.

2. The suit was contested on various grounds of which the most important was that an account had already been rendered, so that the guardian was not now liable to render accounts for the period during which he was guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act. It was also contended that the security bond had not been legally assigned to Raja Babu by the District Judge. The Subordinate Judge of Patna decided these issues in favour of the plaintiff, and directed that a Commissioner should be appointed who should determine what property of the minor came into the possession of Gauri Lal on the death of his father, and afterwards when Gauri Lal was appointed guardian by the District Judge; and to take an account of the income and expenditure during that period.

3. Mr. C.C. Das on behalf of the appellant Gauri Lal argues in the first place that he should not have been held liable to account at all, because accounts had already been taken and acquittance had been given by Raja Babu, secondly, that if Gauri Lal is held liable to account, he should only be liable for the period subsequent to the date of his appointment as guardian by the District Judge, and thirdly that the brothers of Gauri Lal who executed the security bond should be liable only as sureties for the period subsequent to the date of the execution of the bond He also contends that the learned Subordinate Judge ought himself to have decided precisely what property came into the hands of Gauri Lal as guardian

4. I take the last point first. No valid objection can be taken to the form of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. It was not practicable for him to determine precisely what property came to the hands of the guardian at different times, which is a work to be done by the Commissioner appointed to take the account, and not by the learned Subordinate Judge sitting in Court.

5. On the question of whether account has been rendered, learned Counsel draws attention of the Court to the evidence of Raja Babu himself, who says that, when he attained majority, he asked Gauri Lal to submit the accounts and Gauri Lal gave him an oral account and no papers. Gauri Lal himself says that he made over to Raja Babu the bonds, hundis, promissory notes, and all the papers relating to his estate.

6. Some stress is laid upon the fact that the copy of a plaint, Ex. BB shows that in September, 1922, Raja Babu was instituting suits for rent in his own name from which learned Counsel would draw the inference that the whole of his property had been handed over to him, but since in September, 1922, Raja Babu was of age, a suit could not be instituted on his behalf in any other form, because Gauri Lal could no longer sue as next friend for a nephew who was sui juris. It also appears from a letter Ex. P that at about that time Raja Babu had been managing a shop at Dinapore. All that the evidence indicates is that the actual management of his Immovable property may have been made over to Raja Babu on the attainment of majority; but it does not appear there was anything like regular rendering of accounts, since otherwise as the learned Subordinate Judge has pointed out, Gauri Lal would not have omitted to have taken a receipt from Raja Babu.

7. It is argued that even if accounts were not rendered at the time when Raja Babu attained majority, they were rendered subsequently in the Court of the District Judge at the beginning of 1923, when Gauri Lal was called upon to make over the property and accounts to the ward. What Gauri Lal did in response to that order was to produce certain lekha bahis in a locked box of which the key was made over to the sarishtadar of the Court, and he subsequently objected to Raja Babus taking the accounts away; although he was told by the District Judge, that unless Raja Babu was satisfied he would obtain no acquittance u/s 41(4), Guardians and Wards Act. It appears that Raja Babu obtained these. bahis from the District Judge when he was about to institute the suit, and it is suggested on behalf of the appellant that having obtained these papers he ought, when preparing his plaint, to have surcharged or falsified the accounts by showing that particular items ought to be there which were not there, or else that particular items were incorrect. As the learned Subordinate Judge has pointed our, it is only necessary to examine these bahis, Exs. E and F series, to see that the mere production of these papers cannot be regarded as a sufficient rendering of accounts. The entries must be explained, and this may be properly done before the Commissioner. 1 accept the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that no proper account has been rendered to Raja Rabu by Gauri Lal.

8. I may observe that the principles on which a suit of this nature should be decided have been discussed in many cases of which Bharat Chandra Chakrabarty Vs. Kiran Chandra Rai, need only be mentioned. Gauri Lal did not discharge himself from the duty of accounting by merely delivering a set of written papers, without explaining them and producing vouchers by which the items of disbursement might be supported, I would not be understood to say that the absence of a voucher for a particular item is necessarily fatal to the entry of a disbursement which took place long ago but if Gauri Lal finds himself in trouble on this account, he has only himself to blame, since he might have protected himself (and he ought to have done so), by rendering accounts regularly to be scrutinized in the office of the District Judge. This is a suit for accounts, based on the allegation, which has been found to be justified, that the defendant has not rendered any real account and as was pointed out by Mukherji, J., in the case which has been cited above, it has manifestly an entirely different scope from that of a suit in which the ward may allege that the guardian has rendered accounts, praying to have them re-opened or to have liberty to surcharge and falsify them, on the ground of fraud or material error. It was necessary that these accounts should be explained, and it is sufficiently clear that Raja Babu could not obtain the explanation to which he was entitled without invoking the aid of the Courts. It is clear that Gauri Lal must render a proper account to Raja Babu, and that the order requiring him to do so must be affirmed.

9. I come now to the question of the period for which the account should be required. Mr. C. C. Das concedes that if Gauri Lal has to render an account, he must render it for the period from the time when he was appointed guardian by the District Judge until he finally made over to Raja Babu the last item of property which he held as his guardian But it is argued that Gauri Lal should not be required to account for the period between the death of Keolapat and Gauri Lals appointment as guardian. On 3rd November, 1926, after this appeal had been admitted, the following direction was given by the High Court, on an application for stay of proceedings before the Commissioner:

By consent it is ordered that the Commissioner do take accounts only of these properties which in the application made by the defendant for the guardianship of the plaintiff were entered as the properties of the plaintiff. The Commissioner will not investigate any question as to the title to properties other than the above; nor will he investigate any of the matters covered by issue No. 10 in the suit.

10. It is suggested that this is an order finally disposing of the question; but Sir Ali Iman says that it was understood by the parties and intended by the Court that this was merely an interim order which dealt with the matter pending disposal of the appeal, not an order finally disposing of this matter. Sir Ali Imams contention is clearly correct; and the matter has now to be considered on the evidence.

11. On the question of whether Gauri Lal did any acts as guardian of Raja Babu before his formal appointment by the District Judge, the evidence on the whole indicates that he did, as the learned Subordinate Judge has pointed out in his decision of the 14th issue of the suit. It is contended that Raja Babus petition of 15th January, 1923, Ex. K, contains an admission that Gauri Lal obtained possession of no property of the minor until be was appointed guardian by the District Judge, but no such inference can fairly be drawn from the statements in this petition It is suggested that similar admission should be inferred from the omission in the plaint of this case to specify in exact detail the property of which possession was taken immediately after Keolapats death, but para. 9 of the plaint clearly states that before his appointment as guardian, Gauri Lal used to manage and transact business on behalf of the minor. Mr. Das would infer from Ex. D, a letter addressed by the Bank of Bengal to Musammat Lakhpat Kuer, Raja Babus mother, that in January, 1907, she was managing her sons affairs when she sent currency notes for Rs. 10,000 to the Bank of Bengal for investment. But Gauri Lals petition of 19th May, 1908, Ex. 46, clearly indicates that this transaction was carried on under his management and supervision. Sir Ali Imam on behalf of Raja Babu agrees to forgo his claim to accounts for the period before Gauri Lals appointment as guardian except for cash, jewellery and ornaments belonging to Keolapat which the plaintiff may be able to show came into Gauri Lals possession at that the period and the directions to the Commissioner may be modified to that extent.

12. Mr. Das does not press any objection regarding the validity of the security bond executed by Gauri Lals two brothers, nor of the validity of its assignment to Raja Babu; but he desires that it may be noted that the sureties are liable only to the amount of their bond for any defalcation which may be found to have occurred during the period when Gauri Lal was guardian under Guardians and Wards Act, and not for any earlier period. This view of course is correct. The result is that, except for a slight modification of the directions to the Commissioner, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The directions to the Commissioner are affirmed, except that for the period before Gauri Lals appointment as guardian he is only required to account for such cash, jewellery or ornaments of Keolapat as the plaintiff may be able to prove to have come into his possession at that period.

13. One point remains to be considered. It has been brought to the notice of the Court u/s 12, Court Fees Act, that the question of valuation of this suit for the purposes of Court-fees was wrongly decided by the learned Subordinate Judge, to the detriment of the revenue, on 24th February, 1925. u/s 7(iv)(f), Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is obliged in a suit for accounts to state the amount at which he values the relief sought, and Court-fees payable ad valorem according to the amount at which the relief is valued in the plaint. In the present case the plaintiff valued the relief which he sought at Rs. 75,100; but for the purpose of assessment of Court-fees he selected three items, amounting in all to Rs. 3,200, and paid Court-fee on this amount, with an additional Court-fee of Rs. 15.. If this method of valuation had been admissible the appeal would have lain not to this Court but to the Court of the District Judge since u/s 8, Suits Valuation Act, the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and of assessment of Court fee must be the same. The valuation of the claim for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 75,000 is not on the face of it unreasonable.

14. The plaintiff, when he is required by the Court Fees Act to place a valuation On his claim, must state a valuation which need only be approximately correct; but it must not be arbitrary or manifestly inadequate: Shama Pershad Sahi v. Sheoparsan Singh 41 Ind. Cas. 95 : 5 P.L.J. 394 : 2 P.L.W. 173. The valuation can only be made approximately; and Section 11, Court Fees Act, makes provision for the payment of additional Court-fee if the original valuation should be ultimately found to have been inadequate. But this does not mean that the plaintiff having valued his claim is entitled to select one or two items and to leave the rest for assessment u/s 11 after the final decree has been obtained. As I have said, the plaintiff has to value his claim for purpose of determining the jurisdiction, not necessarily exactly, but in an approximately correct fashion;and Court-fees are payable on the valuation so made. In the present case the plaint was insufficiently stamped by Rs. 1,657-8-0. The decree of this Court will be kept in abeyance and it will not be signed until the deficit Court-fees have been paid. If the deficiency is not made good within 21 days the plaintiffs suit will stand dismissed under a. 10 (ii) read with Section 12, Court Fees Act.

Das, J.

15. I agree.