A defendant’s e-assessment slip could not justify sending a partition plaint out of court without a statutory valuation inquiry, the Calcutta High Court held while restoring Title Suit No. 268 of 2023. The Division Bench also ordered limited receivership over the property’s rent and upkeep.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya authored the judgment for himself and Justice Sandip Kumar De. It reversed Order No. 47 dated 10 March 2025 of the Twelfth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta.
“In the absence of any such inquiry or investigation, if the court holds the suit outright to be undervalued, the plaintiff loses the opportunity statutorily given to it to contest or participate in the hearing in respect of valuation or to put forth its version on the same.”
— Para 72
Why it matters. The ruling separates two stages often collapsed in court-fee disputes. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure tests the plaint on its own averments; a contested claim that the property is worth more must travel through the inquiry, evidence and investigation machinery in Sections 11 to 20 of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970.
A partition suit revived
The trial judge had returned the plaint for presentation before a forum with higher pecuniary jurisdiction, calling the suit grossly undervalued. The same order rejected the plaintiffs’ request under Order XL Rule 1 CPC for a receiver.
The High Court found that the trial judge relied solely on an e-assessment slip procured by the defendants. That document classified the premises as commercial and bastu, although the pleadings and the defendants’ own material did not clearly establish commercial use. The court said the trial judge travelled beyond Order VII Rule 11 by relying on defendants’ material and skipped the Court Fees Act’s complete mechanism for deciding valuation.
Section 7(viii), the Bench added, applies when a co-owner seeking separate possession has been excluded from the entire joint property. The plaint said the plaintiffs’ physical possession had been reduced to two rooms and another portion, not that they had been ousted from the whole property. Even if the provision applied, only the market value of their claimed share—not the entire property—would be relevant.
The award did not bind
The defendants also relied on an arbitral award dated 9 February 2002 and the dismissal for default of an earlier partition suit. Neither barred the new action.
The present plaintiffs claimed as independent co-owners and had not been parties to the arbitration. The record showed no publication of the award after the arbitrators’ extended mandate ended; the copy was unstamped and gave no reasons despite Section 31(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Bench did not finally decide the even-number-of-arbitrators issue under Section 10 because the award was invalid on other grounds.
Nor did Order IX Rule 9 CPC apply. Once the earlier court referred the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the 1996 Act, no suit remained before it to be dismissed in the statutory sense. A partition cause of action was continuing in any event.
Valuation required inquiry
The High Court described Sections 11 to 20 of the Court Fees Act as an adjudicatory ecosystem: the trial court may investigate, commission a local inquiry, compel documents and witnesses, determine the fee, and trigger statutory refund consequences where appropriate. None of that occurred.
The proper course is now a trial on evidence after issues are framed. The appellate observations are tentative and must not predetermine the merits.
The sequence of the trial court’s rulings mattered too. It decided the receiver application before holding that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The High Court said a court that considers itself without jurisdiction cannot first adjudicate an interlocutory application on its merits. Once the valuation premise failed, both components of the order required appellate correction.
The judgment
The receiver application alleged that the defendants and even their spouses were inducting tenants, collecting substantial salami and rent, and failing to disclose the receipts. The Bench found the written denial evasive and moulded a narrower remedy than the plaintiffs had sought.
The trial judge must appoint a receiver within a fortnight of receiving the judgment. The receiver will collect rents and other usufructs, maintain the property from that income, keep income-and-expenditure accounts and file them at intervals fixed below. The plaintiffs will initially pay the remuneration; later remuneration may come from the property income.
F.M.A. No. 712 of 2025 was allowed on contest, the suit was restored, and CAN 1 of 2025 was disposed of without costs. After pronouncement, however, the Bench stayed operation of its judgment for 30 days from 31 August 2026. The receiver and restoration directions therefore remain subject to that temporary stay.
“It would be going beyond the ambit of Order VII Rule 11 if the court takes into consideration materials furnished by the defendants.”
— Para 43
“Moreover, even if the said provision was to be applicable, the valuation would be the market value of the plaintiffs’ share and the plaintiffs’ share alone and not the valuation of the entire property.”
— Para 74
“the Court can always mould the relief and grant a lesser remedy by appointing a receiver only for the purpose of collecting rent and maintaining accounts as well as maintaining and preserving the suit property.”
— Para 83