PARAMANANDA DAS BABAJI Vs. EANAI DAS BABAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this case is over the shebaitship of a debattar. The debattar was created by Brindabandas Babajee by an arpannama, which has been marked as an exhibit in this case. By this arpannama Brindabandas Babajee appointed himself as the first shebait and appointed Sundaranandadas Babajee as the next shebait. As regards the appointments of shebaits after Sundarananda, he gave the following directions in the arpannama. As the exact meaning of the Bengali words will require careful consideration in this matter, it is necessary to set out those words fully:

(2.) We are no longer concerned with an objection that was taken under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the finding of the courts below that it was a private debattar was not disputed before us. The Defendants contested the fact of appointment of Kanaidas Babajee by Sundarananda and next contended that, even if there was an appointment, it was not a valid appointment. The trial court rejected both these contentions and held that, as there was a bona fide appointment by Sundarananda, the court was not entitled to go into the question of the validity of the appointment, and gave a decree declaring Kanaidas Babajee to be the rightful shebait and directing the receiver to make over possession to Kanaidas Babajee. The learned Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, was of opinion that Kanaidas Babajee was, in fact, appointed by Sundarananda, but it was open and proper to the court to consider and decide whether the appointment was made in accordance with the arpannama. According to him-

(3.) It has been contended before us in this appeal by two of the Defendants that there was no evidence before the court below to justify the finding of fact that there was in fact an appointment of Kanaidas Babajee by Sundarananda and, secondly, that, in any case, the court of appeal below was wrong in holding that the conditions as laid down in the arpannama were satisfied.