SRI CHANDRA CHOOR DEO Vs. BIBHUTI BHUSHAN DEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this case relates to succession to shebaiti right in certain properties which are described in the schedules attached to the plaint. The last shebait to whom the plaintiff, who is a minor, claims to have succeeded was Rai Bahadur Ram Sumran Prasad, who died on 8 December 1924 leaving his widow, Mt. Sabitri Devi in whose favour he executed a will giving her, besides all his properties absolutely, authority to adopt. She obtained probate of the will on 23rd December 1925, and thereafter on 13 May 1928 she in accordance with the authority given by her husband adopted the plaintiff. The relationship between the parties will appear from the following genealogy:

(2.) The deities Sri Sri Radha Krishna to whom the disputed properties belong were admittedly installed by Mt. Jayanti Kumri, widow of Rai Bahadur Ram Sumran's paternal uncle Banarsi Prasad, in a temple built by her. According to the pleadings of the parties, it is common ground that the properties described in Schs. 1 and 2 of the plaint which were held by Mt. Jayanti Kumari as a widow's estate, being inherited from her husband, were dedicated by her to the said deities by two deeds of endowment dated 6 December 1906 and 12 September 1912 respectively with the consent of her husband's then reversionary heirs, namely, his nephews, who in fact joined with her in executing the deeds. Under the terms of these deeds of endowment, Mt. Jayanti Kumri herself was the first shebait, and on her death in 1916 Rai Bahadur Ram Sumran and the defendants father Jagatdhar Narain became joint shebaits. On Jagatdhar's death in 1920, the defendants became shebaits in his place, and since then they are in possession of the disputed properties as shebaits of the deities concerned.

(3.) Ram Sumran was admittedly a co-shebait till his death in 1924. Upon his death disputes arose between his widow Sabitri Devi, on the one hand, and the defendants, on the other. Sabitri made an attempt to get her name recorded in the land registration records as a co-shebait in the place of her deceased husband, but her attempt failed. This was in 1925. The plaintiff after his adoption applied under the guardianship of his adoptive mother for registration of his name as a co- shebait in the place of Rai Bahadur Ram Sumran. His application waS opposed by the defendants, who challenged both the factum and validity of his adoption. His application was rejected by the Land Registration Deputy Collector on 30th October 1928, and on appeal his order was confirmed by the Collector on 20th November 1928. The plaintiff then brought the present suit on 23 June 1934 for declaration of his right as a co-shebait with the defendants in respect of the disputed properties described in Schs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the plaint and for recovery of joint possession of those properties. The properties described in Sch. 3 are the temple and ornaments of the idols and those described in Sch. 4 are immovable properties which were subsequently acquired.