RAJA PEARY MOHAN MUKERJI Vs. MONOHAR MUKERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANY questions were originally involved in the dispute which has given rise to this appeal, but of these two only remain. The first relates to the continuance of the appellant Raja Peary Mohan Mukerji in the office of shebait to the debottar estate of Sri Sri Iswar Gopaleswar Shiva Thakur and Sri Sri Iswar Shridhar Thakur, and the second to the purchase in January, 1913, of a certain lot known as lot Bahirgora, which was sold in execution under circumstances to which their Lordships will briefly refer.

(2.) BY his will, dated September 11, 1840, Jaga Mohan Mukerji dedicated certain properties to the worship of the two Thakurs established by him, for the annual celebration of the Durga Puja, the Sradh of ancestors, and other pious usages, the will providing for the order of succession to the office of the shebait among the testator's own descendants. The testator died shortly after the execution of his will, and in September of 1890 the succession to the shebaitship opened, owing to the death of the then shebait. Disputes arose as to who was the true successor, which resulted in a decree of January 29, 1894, that one Bijoy Krishna was the rightful shebait, but on the day of the decree he died. Further litigation then ensued between the sons of Bijoy Krishna and the Raja who is the appellant in the first of these appeals, which ultimately resulted in a decree of June 30, 1903, made by the Subordinate Judge in favour of the sons of Bijoy Krishna for Rs. 45,960, which sum it was ordered should be recovered by the plaintiffs out of the debottar estate in the hands of the Raja as its shebait. Appeals were taken from this judgment to the High Court, and again from the High Court to His Majesty in Council (1909) L.R. 37 I.A. 27, but these appeals failed. Execution proceedings were then instituted in order to secure a sale out of the debottar estate of the lot that is now in dispute, and on January 14, 1913, the said lot was sold at a public Court sale for Rs. 1,56,600 to the appellant in the second appeal, who is the son of the Raja.

(3.) UPON the question of the removal of the Raja, the learned Subordinate Judge thought that there was no sufficient charge of misconduct to justify his removal; but the High Court took a different view, and thought that the protracted litigations by which the estate had become heavily. burdened with debts, and the circumstances associated with the claims which he was seeking to establish against the estate for litigation expenses, were such as to render it undesirable that he should continue in the office. They also found that the purchase could not be sustained. Their Lordships are not prepared to interfere with these conclusions. The grounds for removing a shebait from his office may not be identical with those upon which a trustee would be removed in this country. The close intermingling of duties and personal interest which together make up the office of shebait may well prevent the closeness of the analogy, but as part of the office it is indisputable that there are duties which must be performed, that the estate does need to be safeguarded and kept in proper custody, and if it be found that a man in the exercise of his duties has put himself in a position in which the Court thinks that the obligations of his office can no longer be faithfully discharged, that is sufficient ground for his removal. It is this that forms the foundation of the judgment of the High Court, and the appellant has not satisfied their Lordships that the facts were misinterpreted or the reasoning unsound.