1. The question raised by this rule is whether the Munsiff of Sibsagar had declined jurisdiction in refusing to entertain the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of his right to the office of Bara Thakur of (he temple of Siva and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right as Bara Thakur on the ground that the suit; was valued at Rs. 4,600 and was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif. This order which is challenged was made so far back as 22nd April 1926.
2. An appeal was taken against this order to the Additional District Judge who held that as the relief was valued at Rs. 130 by the plaintiff the Munsiff was wrong in returning the plaint, but he thought that the suit was one under Section 92, Civil P.C. and it was desirable that the matter should be heard by the District Judge.
3. The District Judge in whose Court the plaint was filed, however, took the view that the suit was not one under Section 92 and could not be entertained by him and held that the proper Court was that of the Subordinate Judge of Jorehat.
4. The plaintiff who is the petitioner was advised that the opinion of the District Judge that the proper Court was the Court of the Subordinate Judge Jorehat could not be binding on him.
5. The present rule is directed against the orders of the Munsiff of Sibsagar dated 22nd April 1926 and the order of the Additional District Judge dated 13th August 1927, and that of the District Judge dated 31st August 1928.
6. The petitioner has been bandied about from Court to Court and the question now is whether the Munsiff had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff contends that the suit is for declaration of his right as Bara Thakur and for permanent injunction and under Section 7, Clause (iv), (c) and (d), Court-fees Act, the valuation put by the plaintiff on his plaint is the valuation both for the purpose of court-fees as well as for purposes of jursidiction. It is said that the value of the temple properties cannot be the criterion for the purposes of jurisdiction for plaintiff claims a right not to the moveable and immovable properties of the deity but to his office as shebait and he values his relief at Rs. 130. Reliance is placed on the decision on the case of Mahendra Sundar Thakur v. Dinabandhu Thakur  19 C.L.J. 15, in support of this contention. The opposite party on the other hand relies on the decision of Raj Krishna Dey v. Bepin Behari Dey  40 cal. 245 for supporting his case that as the value of the properties in suit as put by the plaintiff is more than 4,600, that is the value of the relief sought by the plaintiff and distinguishes the present case from the case in  19 C.L.J. 15 on the ground that here plaintiff on his own showing has been dispossessed by defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 who have forcibly occupied half the debuttar land of the deity.
7. The petitioner, however, relies on the decision of Sir Lawrence Jenkins' Chief Justice of Bombay in the case of Kunj Behari v. Purshottam Prasadji  28 Bom. 567, and contends that it is not necessary in this case to pray for recovery of possession. In the Bombay case, however, it appears that the defendants were in possession of the Gadi on the basis of a will purporting to be that of the previous Gadipati. In the present case there is a clear allegation in paragraph six of the plaint of the dispossession from half of the debuttar properties and the petitioner cannot evade the payment of court-fees by praying ostensibly for an injunction which may really mean a prayer for recovery of possession.
8. The value of the temple properties have been found to be Rs. 4,600 the value of the half would be about Rs. 2,300. The Munsiff would have no; jurisdiction to entertain such a suit. In the circumstances we think the rule must be discharged and the plaintiff must file his suit in a proper Court.
9. Let the original plaint be returned to the petitioner by this office for presentation to the proper Court.
10. There will be no order as to costs.
11. I agree.