JATI KAR Vs. MUKUNDA DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff brought this suit for the recovery of possession of a turn of worship in a certain temple for eight days in the month from the 13th to the 20th by virtue of a usufructuary mortgage from the mother and guardian of defendants Nos. 3 and 4, on the allegation that he had been dispossessed of the same by the manager of the defendant No. 2, the Raja of Puri, who is supporting the claim of defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 admits that the grand-father of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 was the original sebak, but says that he had in 1865 made a gift of this turn of worship in favour of his (defendant No. l s) father, and that during his minority plaintiff had been employed as a khatnihar, or paid servant, on his behalf and used to pay him a certain amount of money every year.

(2.) Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 did not contest the plaintiff s claim, but both defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did on various grounds. The Court of first instance decreed the suit for recovery of possess Lou, but the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the same. It is contended in second appeal that the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong.

(3.) In the first place, the learned Subordinate Judge finds that the usufructuary mortgage- bond is not proved, because the evidence is not in conformity with the requirements of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 69 of the Evidence Act.