KRISHNA BALLAV GHOSH Vs. SIBANANDA DE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed by Sri Bhagawat Goswain of Bahugram, a deity represented by the marfatdars, Sibananda De and Srimatya Sashimukhi Bose, for a declaration that the lands in suit are Devottar and that the sale of the same in execution case started against the marfatdar Sashimukhi is invalid and inoperative. The first Defendant, Krishna Ballav Ghose, who was the auction purchaser at the auction sale, is the Appellant before us. The Plaintiff deity, according to the case of the Plaintiff, was installed by the late Radha Prasad Bose, as the family deity and the suit properties were granted to the deity for keeping up the Sevapuja through Sashimukhi wife of the donor, Radha Prasad Bose. The first Defendant's, case is that the alleged installation and dedication of properties is only nominal and that, as a matter of 1 fact, the deity never existed. It is further alleged that Radha Prasad Bose was heavily involved in debts at the time of the alleged dedication of the suit properties to the Plaintiff deity and that with a view to keep the properties out of the reach of the creditors and for his own benefit he brought into existence certain nominal deeds of gift. The Courts below accepted the Plaintiff's contention and held that the deity, Bhagawat, was in existence and that the dedication of the suit properties was true, and accordingly granted a decree to the Plaintiff.

(2.) THE sole contention on behalf of the Appellant, raised in this Court, centres round the truth or otherwise of the existence of a deity called Bhagawat Goswain. Bhagawat Goswain is merely a collection of books and in this part of the country the Oriya Bhagawat written on palm leaf is deified and worshipped as a deity. But it is of rare occurrence in Bengali families. In fact this is the first time I have ever heard of a Bengali family worshipping Bhagawat written in Oriya script and composed by an Oriya author, and deifying it as a deity and making a dedication to it for the reading of Bhagawat. Apart from this the facts which have been proved and admitted beyond doubt in this case are:

(3.) IT is also fairly conceded at the bar that there is no other evidence regarding the installation sometime in 1928 -29. Taking the evidence at its highest, it may be that all that was done in 1929 or thereabouts was to place a few books, representing the Bhagawat, in a corner of the house and start worshipping them as a deity. But that is not sufficient, in the eye of the law, to give the character of a juristic personality to the books. A deity in an ideal sense is a juridical person and is capable of holding properly, but a collection of books however sacred, is not a legal person. If therefore the consecration has not been established or attempted to be proved, all the subsequent documents purporting to endow property on this collection of books is, in the eye of the law, invalid. We were therefore anxious to know from Mr. U.N. Rath appearing for the deity, who took considerable pains to place the evidence before us regarding the status of Radha Prasad Bose at the time of the creation of these deeds, to tell us if there was anything in the evidence to show that there was in fact any consecration. We find that there is not a shred of evidence to prove the fact of installation. It therefore becomes unnecessary to consider the validity or otherwise of the deeds of gift. Having regard to the fact however that the donor was involved in debts which would have left very little, if anything, to himself, we are not inclined to accept the inference of fact arrived at by the Courts below, viz. that the value of the properties was slightly in excess over the amount of debts, on the date of execution of Ext. J. The question is not whether he would have been able to discharge his debts it he had sold away the properties but whether the intention of the donor was to salvage some property from out of the reach of the creditors if he could help it. We are satisfied that the dedication could not have been bonafide as all the other properties of the donor had been encumbered on the date of execution of the deeds of gift.