JUDGMENT 1. THIS miscellaneous appeal is directed against order No. 31 dated 19th August, 1966 passed by the chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, whereby the plaint was directed to be returned to the filing lawyer for presentation to the proper court on holding that the suit has not been properly valued and the valuation of the relevant claim in the suit both for the purpose of jurisdiction and for court fees exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court and as such the suit is not triable by the court. The plaintiffs instituted the suit claiming relief for declaration of their right, title and interest and ownership in respect of the suit property which comprises of a portion of the land and structure of premises No. 76/1, Baghbazar Street, Calcutta, measuring about 233 x 156 yards i.e. 46 cottahs and also for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for other reliefs. The suit was valued at Rs. 10/-as it has been stated that there was no objective standard of valuation of the claims of the plaintiffs. The defendant-respondent filed a written statement and in paragraph 3 of the written statement it has been pleaded that the court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. In paragraph 14 of the written statement the defendant also stated that the suit had not been properly valued and according to the averments made in the plaint the area of the land in suit as appeared in the schedule being 233 x 156 yards the value would be more than Rs. 20,000/-and the court wherein the plaint had been filed had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On this pleading on 18th November, 1965 by order No. 14 the court below framed certain issues. The issue no. 2 is as follows : - "has this court jurisdiction to try this suit?" 2. 20,000/-and the court wherein the plaint had been filed had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On this pleading on 18th November, 1965 by order No. 14 the court below framed certain issues. The issue no. 2 is as follows : - "has this court jurisdiction to try this suit?" 2. THE court on August 19, 1966 took up the issue regarding jurisdiction as a preliminary issue for hearing and it appears that by the said order No. 31 the court having found that the issue regarding the jurisdiction was not properly framed, framed an additional issue to the effect -"has this suit been properly valued and has this court jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit?" inspite of the objection filed by the plaintiffs that the hearing of the said issue as a preliminary issue be adjourned to a later date in order to unable the plaintiffs to adduce evidences as to the question of valuation, the Court did not grant that prayer, but allowed the plaintiffs' lawyer to advance his argument in course of the day. However, the plaintiffs' lawyer did not make any argument on that day. The learned Chief judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, after hearing the learned Advocates for the defendant and also on a consideration of the land acquisition award granted by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of the premises No. 76/1, Bag Bazar street, Calcutta found that the valuation of the property was more than rupees four lakhs and as such it was beyond the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. After holding that, the learned Chief Judge directed the plaint to be returned to the filing lawyer for presentation to the proper forum. Against this judgment and order the instant appear has been preferred before this Court. 3. MR. B.M. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted in the first place that the suit is one for declaration of title and the consequential relief prayed therein is for permanent injunction. There being no objective standard for valuing the relief, the plaintiffs are entitled to put their own valuation. 3. MR. B.M. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted in the first place that the suit is one for declaration of title and the consequential relief prayed therein is for permanent injunction. There being no objective standard for valuing the relief, the plaintiffs are entitled to put their own valuation. Accordingly the valuation that has been put by the plaintiffs on the plaint for the purpose of court fees as well as for the purpose of jurisdiction being in conformity with the provisions of section 7 (iv) (c) of the court Fees Act, the Court below was wrong in not accepting the same and in proceeding to determine what will be the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit and in passing the impugned order. It has been next submitted by mr. Mitra by referring to the provision of Order 14 Rule 2, Clauses (a) and (b) of the Code of Civil Procedure that the framing of a composite issue and the determination of the same as a preliminary issue without determining other issues is not proper and legal. It has been submitted by Mr. Mitra in this connection that the determination of the issue regarding valuation is a mixed question of fact and law and as such the plaintiffs ought to have been given an effective opportunity to adduce evidence regarding the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit. It has been further submitted in this connection that the framing of the composite issue is also bad and it has worked injustice to the plaintiffs. 4. NONE appears on behalf of the respondents to contest the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly section 1 of the Court fees Act, 1970 (Act X of 1970) provides as follows :- "the amount of fee payable under this Act in the suits next hereinafter mentioned shall be computed as follows :- (iv) In suits (b) to obtain a declaratory decree or order, where consequential relief is prayed, (c) to obtain an injunction, in all such suits the plaintiff shall state the amount at which he values the relief sought. " 5. " 5. THEREFORE, on a plain reading of these above provisions, it is clear that in regard to declaratory suits where the consequential relief of injunction is prayed for, the plaint is to be valued accordingly as the plaintiff thinks the relief sought in the plaint be valued. In the instant case the plaintiffs instituted the suit praying for a declaration of their title and interest and ownership in respect of the suit property and they prayed for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs have valued the suit both for declaration and for permanent injunction at Rs. 10/- for the purpose of court fees as well as for the purpose of jurisdiction of the Court. The plaintiffs also submitted a statement along with the plaint regarding the valuation that there being no objective standard of valuation, the plaintiffs put their own valuation on the plaint. It appears that on 8. 11. 65 by order No. 14 ten issues were framed of which issue no. 2 relates to jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. It also appears that on august 19, 1966 the court below while taking up for consideration the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit in the City Civil Court framed an additional issue regarding valuation and jurisdiction. This issue was a composite one and in our opinion such a composite issue should not have been framed and instead of it two issues ought to have been framed. However, after framing such composite issue, the court below proceeded to hear the plaintiffs who prayed for adjournment of hearing on the ground that they required some time to produce evidences as to the valuation of the reliefs claimed in the suit. This was, however, not granted and after hearing the learned Advocate for the defendant and considering the averments made in the pleadings, the court below found that the valuation of the suit property would exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, relying on an award granted by the L. A. Collector, which has, however, not been exhibited in the suit and directed for return of the plaint to the plaintiffs for fling, in the proper forum. 6. 6. WE have already quoted the provisions of section 7 (iv) of the Court fees Act which provides that in relation to suits claiming declaratory relief and injunction as the same cannot be properly valued, the plaintiff has been given the liberty to put his own valuation both for the purpose of court fee well as for the purpose of jurisdiction on the plaint. This has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sathappa Chettiar vs. Ramanathan chettiar reported in AIR 1958 S. C. 245, where Gajendra gadkar J. (as His Lordship then was), who spoke for the Supreme Court, observed as follows :- "if the scheme laid down for the computation of fees payable in suits covered by the several sub-sections of S. 7 is considered, it would be clear that in respect of suits falling under sub-section (iv), a departure has Been made and liberty has been given to the plaintiff to value his claim for the purpose of court fees. The theoretical basis of this provision appears to be that in cases in which the plaintiff is given the option to value his claim, it is really difficult to value the claim with any precision or definiteness. That is why legislature has left it to the option of the plaintiff to value his claim for the payment of court fees. It really means that in suits falling under S. 7 (iv) (b) the amount stated by the plaintiff as the value of his claim for partition has ordinarily to be accepted by the court in computing the court-fees payable in respect of the said relief. " It has been further observed as follows:-"the computation of court-fees in suits falling under S. 7 (iv) of the act depends upon the valuation that the plaintiff makes in respect of his claim. Once the plaintiff exercises his option and values his claim for the purpose of court-fees, that determines the value for jurisdiction. The value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases. 7. IN this case, as we have stated hereinbefore that the suit fell within section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act and the plaintiffs have put their own valuation on the plaint. The value for court fees and the value for jurisdiction must no doubt be the same in such cases. 7. IN this case, as we have stated hereinbefore that the suit fell within section 7 (iv) of the Court Fees Act and the plaintiffs have put their own valuation on the plaint. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the court below was wrong in taking up the question of valuation and in finding the value of the suit property without considering and appreciating the frame of the suit and the relief claimed therein erroneously relying on an award which has also not been exhibited in the suit. 8. FOR the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeal arid set aside the judgment and order passed by the court below. The suit being an old one, let the records be sent down immediately to the court below and the court below will take expeditious steps to hear out the suit. We do not feel inclined to make any order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. Drawing up of formal decree is hereby dispensed with.