(1.) These two appeals are against the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate judge of Bankura, whereby he modified the decision of the learned munsif. Vishnupur, in a suit for a declaration that the Plaintiff and the pro forma Defendants Nos. 30-41 were shebaits. and paricharaks of the deity Sri Sri Iswari Singhabahini Thakurani, installed in the village of Joyrambati, and for other ancillary reliefs by way of subsidiary declarations and perpetual injunctions, etc. The suit was decreed by the learned munsif but on appeal by the principal Defendants that decree was modified and both parties- the Plaintiff and the principal Defendants-being dissatisfied with the adjudication of their respective rights by the lower appellate court have appealed to this Court-the Defendant's appeal (S.A. No. 1196 of 1946) being earlier in point of time.
(2.) The fight is between two rival groups of claimants to the deity's shebaitship whom we shall for convenience, call the Mukherjees and the Mandals. The Plaintiff and the pro forma Defendants Nos. 30-41 belong to the Mukherjee group while the Mandals are the principal Defendants in the present suit. In the suit there was a prayer also for a decree for recovery of possession of certain immovable properties, described in the plaint schedule, in favour of the Mukherjees as shebaits of the deity Singhabahini and though that claim was contested by the defence there was no dispute that the suit properties were dehuttar properties of the above deity.
(3.) The dispute between the parties centres round the claim of shebaitship and the determination of this claim will virtually mean the decision of the suit. According to the Plaintiff's case the deity Singhabahini is the ancestral family deity of the Mukherjees, that is, the Plaintiff himself and the pro forma Defendants Nos. 30-41, having been installed by some member of the Mukherjee family in the remote past, and the Mukherjees, as the descendants of the founder, were the shebaits. There is a genealogy given in the plaint starting from two brothers Narottam and Khelaram. In Narottam's branch there is mention of one Trilochan who, according to the Plaintiff, was the shebait in his time and during whose shebaitship the plaint lands, which, the plaint alleges, are covered by taidad No. 58019 and on one item whereof the deity's temple stands, were gifted to the deity by some ruling prince of Vishnupur. The Plaintiff avers that the Mukherjees have all along been the shebaits and paricharaks of the deity Singhabahini and have been, in that capacity, looking after the deity's worship and properties. The ancestors of the Mandals or the principal Defendants were, according to the Plaintiff's case, only devotees of the deity-and neither shebaits nor paricharaks who undertook and were allowed by the Mukherjees to look after the deity's temple and atchala and to supply certain articles of daily worship, etc., and to cleanse the temple courtyard and the deity's utensils, and for these services they were compensated by the Mukherjees by payment to them of manasiks of Re. 1 and above, offered to the deity by devotees and pilgrims. It was also specifically pleaded in the plaint that all other offerings to the deity including manasiks of lesser value were all along retained and appropriated by the Mukherjees. The Plaintiff alleged that the Mandals were never shebaits or paricharaks of the deity and that the entry in the record-of-rights to that effect was wrong and that the Mandals having obstructed the Plaintiff in the exercise of his shebaiti and parichariki right of the deity Singhabahini as a member of the Mukherjee family and in the enjoyment and possession of the deity's properties as such shebait and paricharak on the plea that they, the Mandals,-and not the Mukherjees-were the shebaits and paricharaks of the said deity and that the Mukherjees were only its pujaris under appointment from the Mandals, the present action had to be brought for vindication of the Plaintiff's rights or, for the matter of that, rights of the Mukherjee family.