The main legal point established in the judgment is that the valuation of the relief sought in a suit is distinct from the valuation of the subject matter of the suit, and an inquiry under Section 11 of the Court Fees Act is necessary if the suit, under the guise of being one under Section 7 (iv) (b), actually seeks cancellation of the deeds or deserves higher valuation.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:

The opposite party instituted against the petitioners a suit for the following and ancillary reliefs:

(i) A decree for declaration that the plaintiff/deity is the owner and occupier of the suit property as described in the Schedule 'A' of the plaint;

(ii) A further decree for declaration that the 'B' schedule described instruments are all vague, illegal, invalid, fraudulent and collusive instruments and both are void ab-initio;

(iii) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating, encumbering and also from creating any third party interest in respect of the A schedule property and further from giving any effect to the same.

2. In the said suit, the petitioners entered appearance and contested by filing a written statement, inter alia taking the plea that the court below did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and decide the suit.

3. The petitioners also filed an application challenging such pecuniary jurisdiction, seeking determination of the dispute as to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court by revising the valuation of the suit, also seeking determination of the correct valuation by holding enquiry, and consequential order of return of plaint.

The plaintiff/opposite party filed a written objection to the said application, to which a counter reply was filed by the defendants/petitioners.

4. The said application of the petitioners was turned down by the trial court vide Order dated November 22, 2017, against which the present revision has been preferred.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the present suit is governed by Section 7 (iv) (b) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as

"the 1970 Act"). The said provision reads as follows:

"S.7. Computation of fees payable in certain suits. The amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows :-

(iv) In suits -

(b) for declaratory decree and consequential relief:- to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed,

According to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint or memorandum of appeal subject to the provisions of section 11.

"Section 11 of the said Act reads as follows:-

"S.11. Inquiry as to valuation of suits.- If the Court is of opinion that the subject-matter of any suit has been wrongly valued, it may revise the valuation and determine the correct valuation and may hold such inquiry as it thinks fit for such purpose. "Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the very language of Section 7 (iv)(b) mandates that the own valuation of the plaintiff, with regard to the relief claimed, is always subject to an inquiry under Section 11 of the 1970 Act. It is submitted that, in the event it is seen that the suit is manifestly overvalued without any objective standard of valuation being disclosed in the plaint, the trial court will undertake an inquiry under Section 11 of the 1970 Act and accordingly decide the correct valuation of the suit.

In the present case, it is submitted, the trial court dismissed the application challenging pecuniary jurisdiction without undertaking an inquiry under Section 11 of the 1970 Act, thereby overstepping its jurisdiction. In this context, learned senior counsel for the petitioners cites several judgments, which are as follows:

(i) (Tarai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v- Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1979) AIR Calcutta 84), where a Division Bench of this Court held, in paragraph no. 7 of the said judgment, inter alia that where in a suit to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, the plaintiff has stated the amount at which he values the relief, the Court ordinarily does not interfere with the plaintiff's determination unless the court is inclined to exercise its powers under Section 11 of the West Bengal Court