ABDUL HAMID SHAMSI Vs. ABDUL MAJID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Calcutta to entertain a suit being T.S. 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 reconstitute the 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 11of 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 15-1-1979 to be effective from 1-1-1979 in which the plaintiff has no interest. The Income-tax Officer passed an order on 26th Dec. 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 Rs. 150/-being the sum of Rs. 50/- 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.

(2.) The defendants Nos. 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 entertain 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 dismissed. The defendant No. 2 has now come to this Court against the High Court's order. Special leave is granted.

(3.) 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 Rs. 1,26,796.72 besides another sum of over Rs. 84,000/- as his share in the profit for a particular period by reference to the proceeding of the Income-tax department mentioned in para 11 of the plaint, and it is, therefore, preposterous on his part to suggest in para 19 of the plaint that it could be tentatively valued at Rs. 50/- 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.