BAIRAGI DAS Vs. SRI UDAY CHANDRA MAHATAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, alienation of deities with all their properties and the sebaiti and Marfatdari rights under a, deed of gift was valid in law. The plaintiffs-respondents herein claim to be Sebait-Marfatdars of deities. Sri Dhyandas mahapurus and Sri Radhakrishna Jew Thakur installed at Bardang Math in mouza bardang included in Touzi No. 14 in the district of Cuttack by virtue of a deed of gift described as deed of settlement dated August 11, 1960 executed by Sir Uday chand Mahatab, Maharajadhiraj Bahadur of Burdwan, at present residing in calcutta, in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1 Bairagi Das who is the appellant herein challenged the validity of the said deed and an issue was framed accordingly. It was argued that the said deed by which the Maharajadhiraj bahadur purported to transfer the deities and their properties was not for the benefit of the deities and it was not with the concurrence of the whole family of the Maharajadhiraj Bahadur. The Maharajadhiraj was made party in the suit as pro forma defendant. The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit on the finding that there is no warrant for holding that the transfer is absolutely void for the reasons discussed in his judgment.

(2.) THE defendant Bairagi Das is a Nahangi Baishnab. His Guru was one prankrishna Das who was a Pujhari of the deities. The said Prankrishna Das was recorded as Marfatdar in the settlement records. After the death of Prankrishna das, his chela, the defendant-appellant Bairagi Das is said to have become the sebait Marfatdar.

(3.) THE plaintiffs' case is that this defendant Bairagi Das was allowed to remain in the Math, was given food and shelter for some time and he was subsequently appointed as a Pujhari. He was entrusted with the Seba-Puja of the deities and the management of their properties. After some time he started creating troubles to the extent of filing criminal cases as stated in the plaint.