1. This is an appeal by the defendant against an order directing the plaint to be returned to the Munsif's Court as in the opinion of the Subordinate Judge the suit was triable by the Munsif which according to him was the proper Court to try. It appears that the plaintiff now respondent instituted a suit against the defendant now appellant who happens to be the wife for declaration and a permanent injunction in respect of immovable and other properties. In para. 11 of the plaint the plaintiff stated that for the purpose of ascertaining the jurisdiction of the Court the value of the reliefs is laid at Rs. 7,175-8-0 that is, Rs. 5,000 in deposit in the Bank and Rs. 187-8-0 interest thereon, altogether Rs. 5,187-8-0 plus Rs. 681, the value of the two jotes and Rs. 1,000 value of the zeminadri, in all Rs. 7,168-8-0, plus Rs. 10 on account of the permanent injunction and a court-fee of Rs. 20-12-0 is paid being Rs. 20 for the prayer for declaration and annas 12 for the permanent injunction. An objection was taken by the defendant with regard to the inadequacy of court-fees paid on the plaint and it was contended that a suit for declaration of title to the property being valued at more than seven thousand odd and the reliefs for injunction having been valued at Rs. 10 it was a valuation with regard to the injunction which was the consequential relief sought which should determine the jurisdiction of the Court and reference was made in this behalf to a decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the Privy Council case of Sunderabai v. Collector of Belgaun 52 Ind. Cas. 897 : A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 135 : 461 A. 20 : 43 B. 376 (P.C.). It appears that in the plaint the plaintiff in putting the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fees did not follow strictly the provisions of Section 7(iv), Clause (c) of the Court Fees Act. He split up the valuation for the purposes of jurisdiction and for the purposes of court-fees. This was contrary to a recent decision of this Court in In the matter of Kali Pada Mpjkherji : AIR1930Cal686 which came before the present Chief Justice Sir George Rankin. The learned Chief Justice points out in that case that in a suit for a declaratory decree where consequential relief is prayed which really falls under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fees Act, the plaintiff is entitled to put his own valuation on such a suit, subject to Sections 4 and 9 of the Suits Valuation Act and he must do so by putting down one single and entire sum as representing the value of the total relief sought by him. It is conceded by Mr. Urukramdas Chakravarty for the respondent that there is not in the plaint of his client such a single valuation as is contemplated in the decision of the learned Chief Justice. In such circumstances the procedure laid down by the learned Chief Justice should have been followed in this case and before the Subordinate Judge could have returned the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the Munsif's Court he should have asked the plaintiff to amend his plaint by putting in one single valuation as is required under Section 7 Clause (iv)(c) read with Section 9 of the Suits Valuation Act.
2. The result, therefore, is that the order of the Subordinate Judge returning the plaint is set aside and he is directed to allow the plaintiff to amend his plaint in accordance with the decision of the learned Chief Justice to which attention has already been drawn, and after the plaintiff has put in a single valuation on his plaint to determine whether it is to be tried by him or by the Munsif.
3. The plaintiff is entitled, to get from the defendant the costs of the preparation of the paper books which it is said amounts to Rs. 95. There will be no order as to other costs.
M.C. Ghose, J.
4. I agree.