DURGA PROSAD MALLICK Vs. RAMESWAR JEW SIBA THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's case is that by a registered deed of arpannama dated 20th Nov., 1932, one Saudamini Dassi dedicated the disputed property to the deity, Sri Sri Rameswar Siba Thakur. The property belonged to Lausen Hazra, 'who had two sons, Bhairab and Balanun. Rama-moyee is Bhairab's widow. After Balaram died, his daughter, Saudamini, acquired the property as a limited owner. She had six sons of whom Ramdas, Makhan and Surendra predeceased her. Ramamoyee transferred her 1 anna 3 pics interest in Barapukur to Saudamini. Subsequently, the latter acquired 16 annas interest in the properly by compromise in a title suit, by purchase and by adverse possession also. She died in 1936 leaving her sons, Ramsaran, Ramtarak and Ramsasi, father of defendant No. 3. Jamini Bala, pro forma defendant No. 4, is Rumtarak's widow. Phanindra, defendant No, 1, is Ramsaran's son. Arum-damoyee, widow of Birendra Nath, is defendant No. 2, who is also Ram Saran's son. Ramtarak, Ramsaran and Ramsasi had divided the properties amongst themsehes. Jamini Bala sold her 1/3rd interest in the properly to the plaintiff by a registered kobala dated 4th Dec., 1948, to meet the expenses of her daughter Lakshminoni's marriage ceremony. In the R. S. Khatinn, the property was recorded as a secular one. Phanindra filed an objection that it was a debuttar property of Sri Sri Rameswar Siba Thakur, of which he was the sole shcbait. Defendant No. 2, Anandamoyee, and defendant No. 3, Nirmal, also claimed shebaitship of the deity. The plaintiff has alleged that Saudamini had no right to dedicate the property to the deity. The fictitious document was obtained by her eldest son, Ramsaran, and she did not understand the nature and contents of the document. She did not treat it as debudar property. The plaintiff was threatened by defendant No. 1 with dispossession. The suit is for declaration of title and confirmation of possession and alternatively, for recovery of possession. There is also a prayer for injunction.

(2.) Defendant No. I has alleged, inter alia, that the arpannama is a valid document. Soudamini executed it with full knowledge of its purports and contents and it was treated as debuttar property.

(3.) The learned Munsif discussed the facts carefully, accepted the plaintiff's version and decreed the suit. The defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal. The appellate court did not discuss the facts properly. That court came to the conclusion that Saudamini did not exceed her right as limited owner in dedicating the property in question in favour of the deity, Sri Sri Rameswar Siba Thakur. She validly executed a document and a valid endowment was created. After coming to those findings, the appeal was allowed and the suit dismissed. Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.