The valuation of the suit property and the application of the correct legal test in considering the prayer for return of the plaint were central to the court's decision.

1. This is an appeal against judgment and order dated January 25, 2008 passed by the learned Judge, Third Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta, in Title Suit No. 819 of 1998. By the order impugned, the learned judge directed return of the plaint to the plaintiff/for presentation to the proper Court. The learned Judge, in the order impugned, held that the valuation of the suit property was much more than ten lakh. Therefore, the suit was not entertainable by the City Civil Court at Calcutta.

2. The suit was instituted for declaration of title and for accounts.

3. It was contended in the plaint that the properties described in schedule 'A' were joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants as those were acquired out of the income of the joint family properties.

4. The plaintiff valued his claim at Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty thousand) only being his 2/15th share in the property-in-suit and he, also, valued his claim for accounts at Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) only tentatively. He had paid Court fees according to the own valuation.

5. The learned Judge adopted curious procedure. He returned the plaint on the basis of a report of the Engineer Commissioner. He found that the Engineer Commissioner valued the property at much higher value.

6. The learned Judge could not have directed return of plaint inasmuch as it could not be said, on a meaningful, not formal, reading of the plaint that the valuation was palpably absurd or imaginary. The issue as to the valuation could not have been disposed of at the preliminary stage even before the trial has commenced; the question ought to have been decided at the conclusion of the trial along with the other issues arising in the suit.

7. Mr. Shehnaz Tareq Mina, learned advocate appearing for the contesting respondents, cites a decision in the case of Goutam Ghosh vs. Magma Fincorp Limited reported in 2009 (4) CCN 425.

8. Even in Goutam Ghosh (supra), it was held that in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction the suit would be valued according to the valuation of the relief where the nature of the declaration was such that it had no objective standard of assessing the valuation, the plaintiff could value the relief according to his own choice. Only when it was apparent that the relief was capable of appropriate valuation according to the case made out by the plaintiff, in such a case, the plaintiff could not arbitrarily value the relief according to his whims.

9. On the settled principles of law, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial Judge applied wrong legal test in considering the prayer for return of the plaint.

10. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The suit is restored to its original file and number.

11. The contesting parties are directed to appear before the Court on August 13, 2012, when the learned Judge shall pass necessary directions for early disposal of the suit.

12. On the prayer of Mr. Shehnaz Tareq Mina, learned advocate appearing for the contesting respondents, we make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the claim and the counterclaim of the parties in the suit and all the issues including issue as to the valuation and jurisdiction are kept open.

13. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is disposed of.

14. In view of disposal of appeal, the connected applications become infructuous and those are, also, disposed of. We make no order as to costs.