CHAUDHURI BAMDEB DAS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order of the District Judge of Cuttack, directing certain co-shebaits of dedicated properties, under Section 105, Orissa Tenancy Act, to appoint a common manager. These properties were dedicated by the well-known Chaudhuri family of Bhingarpur (in the Cuttack District) to their family gods, and twenty-three members of the family are recorded in the Collector's Registers as the co-shebaits. On an application made by the Collector under Section 104 of the Act, the District Judge issued notices to them. Twenty one of the shebaits said in response to the notices that a common manager should be appointed, but the remaining two raised objections, which were overruled by the District Judge. These two shebaits then made the present application to this Court.

(2.) It came in the first instance before my Lord the Chief Justice and Rowland J., when it was argued for the petitioners that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass any order under Section 105 of the Act because the co-shebaits cannot be regarded as the co-owner--within the meaning of Secs.104 and 105--of the properties vested in the various idols. As the point was of public importance, it was directed that the matter should be laid before a Bench of three Judges for disposal.

(3.) The case thus came before this Bench, and when it was first argued before us, the Advocate-General of Orissa who appears for the petitioners stated that none of the dedicated properties was held by more than one idol D.N. Mitter who appears for the opposite party contended on the other hand, that we had here a group of family deities with a common fund; and this seemed to be supported by the fact that the person appointed by the District Judge had, in fact, executed a security bond on his appointment as a common manager of "the Bhingarpur debottar estate." It thus became necessary to know precisely how the properties are owned, as the case would present little difficulty if the properties are owned jointly by more than one deity. We were informed by counsel that there were three documents relating to the dedication of these properties, one in the possession of the petitioners and two in the possession of the opposite party; and in order to ascertain the true position, we directed that these documents should be translated and copies prepared for the use of the Bench. When this was done, the parties were heard finally.