MADHAB CHANDRA BARA Vs. RANI SARAT KUMARI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff-appellant for a declaration of his right to 1,451 bighas of land being a (sic) of 3,000 less 98 bighas covered by mourn Krishnanagar.

(2.) The plaintiff originally brought a suit against Raja Bhupendra Narain Chowdhury, the husband of the defendant No. 1, Rani Sarat Kumari Debi, to recover a debt. On the 28 July 1898, a decree was given by consent and, on the 16 December 1902, amongst others the property in suit, namely, a half share of Raja Bhupendra Narain Chowdhury in the 3,000 less 98 bighas of land included in mouza Krishnanagar. was sold, after attachment, in execution of the decree and purchased by the plaintiff. On the 7 January 1903, Bhupendra Narain Chowdhury made an application under Secs.311 and 244, Civil Procedure Code, to have the sale set aside pn the ground of irregularity and consequential loss. On the 7 March 1903, that application was rejected and on the same day, the sale was confirmed and the sale certificate granted; and on the 17 June 1903, an order was passed for delivery of possession to the plaintiff. In May 1903, 3 Jaistha 1310, Bhupendra Narain died leaving his widow, Rani Sarat Kumari Debi, the present defendant No. 1 respondent. On the 8 August 1903, she put in an application under Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, to have the sale set aside on the ground that the property sold was an endowed property belonging to the idol Sri Sri Madan Gopal Jiu of which she was the shebait. Her application was refused and she was referred to a regular suit. The plaintiff's case is that he then remained in possession of the land but that the defendant No. 1 sent persons who cut and carried off the paddy. In consequence the plaintiff applied to the Revenue Court to have his name registered as the proprietor of the land under the Land Registration Act but, on the 29 March 1904, his application was rejected. He appealed to the Collector and on the 28 April 1904, the decision of the Deputy Collector was reversed and the prayer of the plaintiff was granted. There was an appeal against the Collector's order to the Commissioner and he restored the order of the Deputy Collector on the 3rd August 1904. The Board of Revenue on the 20 September 1904, refused to interfere with the order of the Commissioner and in consequence, the present suit was filed on the 31 July 1905.

(3.) The defence set up by the defendant No. 1 was that the idol Sri Sri Madan Gopal Jiu had been established by Lakshmi Narain Chowdhury, the ancestor of her husband; that he had, in 1755, made an absolute endowment for the benefit of the Idol of the whole of mouza. Krishnanagar and had appointed as shebait of the Idol one Brij Kishore Adhikary; that the profits of the mouza had been subsequently applied for the benefit of the Idol; that after the family of Brij Kishore Adhikary who had been appointed shebait had died out, the shebaitship reverted to the family of the founder of the endowment, and that Nara Narain Roy Chowdhury and after him, his son and grandson and great grandson were shebaits of the thakur and held possession of an one-half share of the land in mouza Krishnanagar as such. It was also pointed out that, in certain resumption proceedings in 1832, mouza Krisnanagar had been lecognised by the Revenue authorities as the debutter land of the Idol Sri Sri Madan. Gopal Jiu and that the mouza was afterwards measured as debutter and recorded as such in the Revenue Survey of 1247 (1840). It was further alleged that the plaintiff, when applying for the sale of the property in satisfaction of his decree, admitted that the property was debutter property and it was contended that he was not entitled in the present suit to claim to have acquired a valid proprietary title under his purchase.