1. In this case the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the Maharaj Kumar of Nadia for a declaration to the effect that they were entitled to perform certain religious ceremonies on the occasion of the Moharrum every year in one of the courtyards attached to the defendant's palace at Krishnagar and they also asked for a perpetual injunction prohibiting the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs by alleging his own title. The suit appears to have been one under Sections 74(C) and (D), Court-fee Act, and the relief sought by the plaintiffs was valued by them at Rs. 165. The defendant contended that the suit had been grossly undervalued and he maintained that, according to a proper valuation, the relief sought by the plaintiffs should have been valued at more than ten thousand rupees. The question was considered by the learned Munsif as to whether or not he should hold an enquiry under Section 8(C), Court-fees Act, but he decided not to adopt this course as he considered that there was no objective standard by which the requisite valuation could be made. In support of his conclusion he relied on a decision of this Court in Gahar Ali Sikdar v. Nesar Sikdar (1938) 43 C.W.N. 167. In that case it was held that ordinarily the objective standard of valuation should be regarded as the value of the benefit which the plaintiff sought to obtain if he succeeded in his suit. Having regard how ever to the circumstances of that particular case, it was decided that no useful purpose would be served by holding an enquiry under Section 8(C), Court-fee Act. The case with which we are now dealing however appears to be essentially one in which an enquiry under Section 8(G), Court-fee Act, might be usefully held. In this case there can be no possible doubt that if the plaintiffs succeed in their suit, the value of a considerable portion of the Maharaja Kumar's palace at Krishnagar will seriously depreciate. It should be possible to estimate the extent of this depreciation by taking expert evidence of valuers or of other persons acquainted with the value of property at Krishnagar, and there should it here fore be no difficulty in forming an estimate as to the extent of the loss which would be incurred by the Maharaja kumar if the plaintiffs succeeded in their suit. Obviously in a case of this sort the extent to which the defendant's property will be depreciated should be taken to correspond to the value of the benefit which the plaintiffs seek to obtain if they succeed in their suit. From this point of view therefore I do not consider that the learned Munsif is correct in holding that there was no objective standard of valuation which would justify him in holding an enquiry under Section 8(C), Court-fee Act.
2. Having regard to the considerations mentioned above, this rule must be made absolute with costs. The order of the learned Munsif dated 6th January 1939 is set aside and it is directed that he should hold the requisite enquiry under Section 8(C), Court-fees Act. The hearing fee of this Rule is assessed at two gold mohurs.