- (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. The suit was instituted for declaration of title and for accounts.
(2.) 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. 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. 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.
(3.) 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. Mr. Shehnaz Tareq Mina, learned advocate appearing for the contesting respondents, cites a decision in the case of Goutam Ghosh versus Magma Fincorp Limited reported in 2009 (4) Calcutta High Court Notes 425.;