DWARIKA NATH CHOWDHURY Vs. ANIL CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court being the Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 141 of 1986. One Smt. Minati Chowdhury filed the suit for recovery of possession as shebait of the Deity Sri Sri Kalimata Thakurnai. The trial court found, as the plaint case is, that the plaintiff, became the owner of the suit property by virtue of a deed of gift executed in her favour by her husband to whom the property belonged and that subsequently by a deed of Arpannama, she dedicated the property in favour of the said deity and appointed herself as the first shebait in 1972. The trial court, however, dismissed the suit on the finding that the plaintiff could not prove that the defect of the defendents ill-behaved with her or that they caused any damage to the suit property as alleged. It may be mentioned that the suit was proceeded by notice of revocation of licence. The learned 1st appellate court did not disagree with the findings of the trial court that the plaintiff got the property by a deed of gift from her husband and subsequently she dedicated the same in favour of the deity and appointed herself as a shebait, but reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit on finding that the defendants have no title to the property nor are they trespassers and their position is that of a licencee but the licence has been revoked by notice as well as by the suit. The present second appeal has been preferred against the said judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated the 1st February, 1986.

(2.) It may be mentioned here that the defendants who are the appellants in this second appeal are also the sons of the deceased plaintiff.

(3.) By executing an Arpannama on 10.11.1972, the plaintiff dedicated the properties in favour of the Deity and appointed herself as the first shebait of the Deity. It was also provided in that Arpannama that after her death her three sons Anil, Sadananda and Gopinath would be the Shebaits and each one of them would nominate his successor with the approval of the other shebaits and in case such nomination does not became possible the working shebaits or shebaits of the relevant time would perform the shebapuja and discharge the shebaits, responsibilities. It was further provided that in case of depravation a shebait would be deprived of his right to shebaitship. Subsequently on 28.6.73, the plaintiff, however, executed another deed by which she modified the terms of the terms of the earlier Arpannama by excluding Gopi nath from shebaitship and by appointing Anil and Sadananda as shebaits after her with a provision that thereafter the shebaitship would develope according to the normal rules of succession governing the inheritance from those two shebaits. During the pendency of the first appeal, the plaintiff died and in her place Anil and Sadananda were substituted as appellants. During the pendency of this second appeal, Anil who was respondent No. 1 died and in his place his heirs have been substituted.