Civil Appeal No 1004 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 2121987 of the High Court of Calcutta in Civil Order No 2506 of 1987
509 SN Kacker N Choudhary and Rathin Das for the Appellant
AP Chatterjee Deepak Mitra and GS Chatterjee for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
The jurisdiction of the City Civil Court Calcutta to entertain a suit being TS No 520 of 1983 filed by the respondent No 1 is under challenge in the present appeal on the ground that the correct value of the suit is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court
The plaintiff respondent No 1 has alleged that he is a partner of a partnership business along with his brothers defendant Nos 1 and 2
Originally it was a proprietary business belonging to Abdul Samad father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos 1 and 2 and was later converted into a partnership firm by a regular deed
During his life time the business was under the control of Abdul Samad but on his death the defendants Nos 1 and 2 have effectively taken charge of the business and excluded the plaintiff
A suggestion to re constitute and partnership made and repeated by the plaintiff has been ignored
In reply to the plaintiff s letter seeking information the defendant No 2 petitioner has stated in his letter to the plaintiff that he the plaintiff has no interest in the firm
In paragraph 11 of the plaint it is stated that he has on enquiry discovered that the defendants nos
1 and 2 have been falsely representing before the Income Tax department inter alia that a new deed of partnership had been executed on 1511979 to be effective from 111979 in which the plaintiff has no interest
The Income Tax Officer passed an order on 26th December 1981 on the basis of the false allegations made by the defendants
The plaintiff has challenged the aforementioned partnership deed of 1979
In paragraph 16 of the plaint the amount of profit from the business has been described as huge
In the prayer portion of the plaint the plaintiff prayed for declaring the partnership deed of 1979 as illegal and void and for passing a decree for dissolution of the partnership firm and for accounts
The valuation of the suit was put as Rs150 being the sum of Rs50 for declaration Rs 50 for rendition of accounts and another sum of Rs 50 for profit to the share of the plaintiff arising out of the business
Court fee was accordingly paid
The defendants No 1 and 2 besides denying the plaint allegations made by the plaintiff challenged the valuation given by the plaintiff as grossly undervalued and arbitrary
The issues relating to the correct valuation and pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to enter 510 tain the suit were taken up as preliminary issues and were decided in favour of the plaintiff
The defendants challenged the order by a civil revision application before the Calcutta High Court which was dismised
The defendant No 2 has now come to this Court against the High Court s order
Special leave is granted
Mr Kacker the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that it is manifest that relief to the tune of lacs of rupees has been claimed by the plaintiff in the suit
He said that the plaintiff has laid claim to a sum of Rs12679672 besides another sum of over Rs84000 as his share in the profit for a particular period by reference to the proceeding of the Income Tax department mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint and it is therefore preposterous on his part to suggest in paragraph 19 of the plaint that it could be tentatively valued at Rs50 only
According to the defence case which is challenged as incorrect by the plaintiff the plaintiff requested for and was allowed a larger share in the well established and reputed business of auctioneer known as Russell Exchange and its assets and goodwill as well as the amount lying in the Habib Bank Karachi Branch solely and absolutely 
The Russell Exchange building is a very valuable property near Park Street in the city of Calcutta
A copy of the Profit and Loss Account for the calendar year 1979 attached by the plaintiff to the additional affidavit filed on his behalf before this Court mentions figures in lacs
Mr Arun Prakash Chatterjee the learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent No 1 has argued that the suit is governed for the purpose of court fees by section 7ivf of the Court Fees Act and the plaintiff has the absolute right to put on the plaint any value he wishes to and the court has no jurisdiction to examine the matter
In other words it is the sweet will of the plaintiff to choose any figure he likes and thus decide finally the court which shall have jurisdiction to entertain the suit without reference to the subject matter of the litigation the nature and extent of the relief claimed or any other factor
He has relied upon the decision of this Court in Smt
Tara Devi vs Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj  and Meenakshisundaram Chettiar vs Venkatachalam Chettiar  Reference was also made to Krishnaji Hari vs Gopal Narayan AIR 1936 Bombay 166 and Ishwarappa vs Dhanji AIR 1932 Bombay 111
Mr Chatterjee claimed that the different High Courts in the country have consistently confirmed this right of the plaintiff and he has not discovered any decision to the contrary
511 5
We are afraid the interpretation put by the learned counsel on the decisions of this Court is not correct and cannot be accepted
None of the two cited judgments relied upon by Mr Chatterjee helps him
It is true that in a suit for accounts the plaintiff is not obliged to state the exact amount which would result after taking all the accounts and he may therefore put a tentative valuation upon the suit but he is not permitted to choose an unreasonable and arbitrary figure for that purpose
At page 392 of the judgment in Meenakshisundaram Chettiar vs Venkatachalam Chettiar supra this Court while taking note of the plaintiff s right to give a tentative valuation on the suit observed The plaintiff cannot arbitrarily and deliberately under value the relief In Smt
Tara Devi vs Sri Thakur Radha Krishna Maharaj  the view was reiterated thus at page 70  
The plaintiff however has not been given the absolute right or option to place any valuation whatever on such relief and where the plaintiff manifestly and deliberately under estimates the relief the court is entitled to examine the correctness of the valuation given by the plaintiff and to revise the same if it is patently arbitrary or unreasonable   6
So far as the opinion of the High Courts is concerned it is not uniform
The argument that the plaintiff can give an arbitrary valuation in the plaint and that the court is bound to accept that made on behalf of the plaintiff before the Allahabad High Court in Aizaz Ahmad vs Nazirul Hasan AIR 1935 Allahabad 849 was rejected after observing that there was some authority for the extreme view as urged in two Calcutta decisions but later a different view was taken by the said Court as also by the Allahabad Court
In Attar Singh vs Manohar Singh ILR 1947 Nagpur 933 the plaintiff non applicant before the High Court filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts valuing at Rs150 as has been done in the case before us
The defendant s objection to the valuation was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the court was powerless to challenge the valuation put by the plaintiff on the relief claimed in the suit
 The Full Bench decision in Mata Ram vs Daulat ILR 1938 Nagpur 588 FB was attempted to be distinguished on the basis that it was a case covered by section 7ivc
of the Court Fees Act and not by section 7ivf
The 512 High Court while repelling the argument pointed out that the principle underlying both the clauses c and f of section 7iv is substantially the same and the Full Bench decision governed the case
Accordingly it was held that when the valuation put by the plaintiff appears to be arbitrary and unreasonable the court may reject it and leave the plaintiff to correct the valuation or have the suit rejected
Similar was the view of the Patna High Court in suits covered by section 7ivc in Salahuddinhyder vs Dhanoolal 1945 ILR XXIV Patna 334 and Shama Pershad Shahi vs Sheopershad Singh XLI IC 95 Patna
In Gouri Lal and others vs Raja Babu AIR 1929 Patna 626 the respondent filed a suit praying for accounts from appellant No 1
Rejecting his claim to put any valuation under section 7ivf of the Court Fees Act the High Court observed that when a plaintiff is required to place the valuation on his claim he must state a valuation which need only be approximately correct but qualified it by saying that it must not be arbitrary or manifestly inadequate
It is true that in a suit for accounts the correct amount payable by one party to the other can be ascertained only when the accounts are examined and it is not possible to give an accurate valuation of the claim at the inception of the suit
The plaintiff is therefore allowed to give his own tentative valuation
Ordinarily the Court shall not examine the correctness of the valuation chosen but the plaintiff cannot act arbitrarily in this matter
If a plaintiff chooses whimsically a ridiculous figure it is tantamount to not exercising his right in this regard
In such a case it is not only open to the Court but its duty to reject such a valuation
The cases of some of the High Courts which have taken a different view must be held to be incorrectly decided
The learned counsel for the parties have placed before us the materials on the record at considerable length and we do not have any hesitation in holding that the valuation put by the plaintiff respondent before us on the plaint is arbitrary and unacceptable
We however do not propose to examine the matter further and remit this question to be reconsidered by the trial court
While examining the issue it will be open to the trial court to take into consideration the statement in the plaint that the plaintiff has been ousted from the partnership business
If the court comes to the conclusion that the tentative valuation of the suit would be beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction it shall pass an appropriate order under Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure
The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs payable by the plaintiff respondent
GN Appeal allowed


Summary:
The Respondent had shipped plywood panels for tea chests to be delivered at Colombo under claim for drawback under Section 75 of the  against shipping bill
The ship developed engine trouble on the way and returned back and ran aground in Indian territorial waters at the port of Paradeep
The fitting stores and cargo vessel had been salvaged into India under the supervision of Port Trust Paradeep
Respondent claimed drawback on the said goods
The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector under Section 75 of the read with Section 218 and rule 2c of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 1971
On appeal the Appellate Collector also rejected the claim on the ground that the ship ran a ground in territorial waters of India and so the said goods could not be deemed to have been exported
A Revision Petition preferred under Section 131 by the Respondent was transferred to the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal
The Tribunal found that the ship had passed beyond the territorial waters of India and the engine trouble developed while the ship was in the high seas and thus by reason of the ship having passed beyond territorial waters with the goods on board the export of the goods out of India had been completed that subsequently the ship decided to sail into the territorial waters was of no relevance and held that under the scheme of Section 75 of the Act export having been completed Respondent was entitled to the benefit of the drawback scheme
501 In the appeal by Revenue under section 130 EB it was contended that proof must be given that the goods had reached a place outside India in view of section 218 and that taking out to a place outside India meant delivery of goods to a place outside India
Rejecting the appeal this Court  HELD 11 The Tribunal was right in the view it took that the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of section 75 of the 
506B 12 When the ship got clearance and moved out of the territorial waters the export was complete
The title to the goods passed to the exporters
The goods reached a place in the high seas which is outside India and the title of the goods also passed to the purchasers
It is true that the goods did not land in any place because of the defect in the ship
But the expression taking out to a place outside India would also mean a place in high seas
It is beyond the territorial waters of India
High seas would also mean a place outside India if it is beyond the territorial waters of India
Indubitably the goods has been taken out of India
505B C D Lucas TVS vs Assistant Collector 1987 vol
28 ELT 266 referred to
22 The word place is generally found in conjunction with other words which give it a colour and is usually controlled by its context
505H 22 In the clause of charter party requiring charterer to procure safe place for discharge of cargo it meant spot selected to drop anchor plus area over which tanker might swing on tide and charter s duty was not fulfilled merely by selecting area containing both safe and unsafe berths
505F G 23 The word place as used in a statute relating to searching for stolen goods in any store shop wherehouse or other building or place in a town includes a steam boat or vessel moored at the wharf
505G Webster Comprehensive Dictionary International Edition page 964 Words and Phrases Permanent Edition Volume 32 A page 128 Stroud s Judicial Dictionary 3rd Edition Vol
3 pp 2199 2208 referred to 502