RIVERS STEAM NAVIGATION CO LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit in which I am now rendering judgment has been raised by Lakshmi Kanto Roy on September 8, 1954 against his two cousins of the first degree, Ninishi Kanto Roy and Radha Kanto Roy, for a twofold declaration : (i) that the two premises, one at 20 Tarak Chatrerjee Lane and the other at 3/1 Bhola Nath Kundu Lane, "from part" of the trust properties brought into being by virtue of an indenture dated January 13, 1879, between the predecessors of all, two brothers Gopal Chunder Ghose and Harray Krishna Ghose, on the one hand, and their respective wives Bhooban Mohiney and Raj Coomary, on the other, for worship or seva of the family idol, Sree Sree Lakshmi Nrisingha Dev, and (ii) that he "is entitled to possession and management of the said premises jointly with" them, no less for certain other reliefs, such as accounting and the framing of a scheme. In the alternative, the relief he prayed the Court for, on the foot of the properties being secular, was a declaration of his moiety share in the said premises and allotment to him "of his divided share therein in severally". This relief is dead now, no longer insisted on as the secular character of the properties is by either party. (See paragraphs 12, 14, 17 and 23 infra.)

(2.) A suit as this dragged its slow length and came up before me for hearing on November 11, 1964 - a little more than 10 years after its institution. One of the issues raised at the hearing was : "is Sree Sree Lakshmi Nrisingha Dev a necessary party to the suit ?" On the third day of the hearing, namely, an November 16, 1964, the impact of so apt an issue was felt and a postponement prayed for, on behalf of the plaintiff, with a view to adding the idol, duly represented as a party, and amending the plaint accordingly. The prayer was allowed. Leave to amend the plaint as above was granted on January 15, 1965. The amendment ordered was carried out on February 1, 1965. A tortuous progress once more, as was inevitable in the circumstances. The added defendant, the deity, filed its written statement on June 10, 1965. No additional written statement was filed by the parties already on record, though they were given an opportunity to do so And what added still more to the delay was my long absence, on duty elsewhere, from this side of the Court, where I returned on September 9, 1965, when the hearing was resumed and concluded, in presence of the plaintiff Lakshmi Kanto Roy, the second defendant Radha Kanto Roy and the third defendant (since added), Sree Sree Lakshmi Nrisingha Dev, spelt in the cause title as Sree Sree Nrisingha Dev, duly represented by a guardian ad litem and a counsel too. The first defendant Nishi Kanto Roy originally appeared in person, was represented by his counsel, Mr. R. N. Das during the hearing in November 1965, and had on September 9, 1965, appearing for him a solicitor (Mr. A. K. Chatterjee) who withdrew with the leave of the Court, on the refusal of his verbal prayer for a postponement of this much postponed case.

(3.) ON resumption of the hearing on September 9, 1965, no de novo trial was claimed on behalf of the deity, the added defendant No. 3, nor even the recall of the plaintiff, Lakahmi Kanto, whose evidence was concluded in the november hearing. What is more, the court was invited to proceed on the evidence already recorded, and to be further recorded (as was recorded), on September 9, 1965. It, therefore, comes to this : Lakshmi Kanto remains uncross-examined on behalf of the added defendant, the deity.