RAJENDRONATH DUTT Vs. SHAIK MAHOMED LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit in this appeal was brought by certain persons to recover a mouzah called Kesubpore; and the case stated in the plaint is that the predecessors of the Plaintiffs, being five brothers, had dedicated certain lands to family idols; that Manickram Dutt, the eldest of the brothers, being the sebait, was managing the seba of the idols out of the proceeds of the consecrated properties and was superintending the debutter properties, and that after the death of two of the brothers he acted improperly with reference to the debutter properties, and apportioned out of them a lot called Pilkhundi as the share of Gopinath Dutt, one of the brothers, and the mehal Kesubpore, the subject of the present suit, to Bykantnath Dutt, the son of Kasinath Dutt, deceased, another of them. The Plaintiffs sue for possession of the whole as debutter.

(2.) THE property which had been so dedicated was the subject of a suit which was commenced in 1857, and ultimately came by appeal before this Board. The nature of the suit is stated in the judgment which was then delivered. The plaint in it is set forth in the record in this suit. It appears to have been brought by Hurinath Dutt, the son of one of the five brothers, against all the other members of the family. Amongst them was Bykantnath Butt, who is said in the present plaint to have had Kesubpore apportioned to him. The judgment (14 Moore, Ind. Ap. Ca. 299) states that the suit was for possession, but not for possession in the ordinary character of proprietor of lands; that the Plaintiff made title to the possession on the ground that the lands had been dedicated to the religious service of the family idols by virtue of two instruments of dedication in the years 1813 and 1820, which still at the time of the suit impressed on the lands a trust which the Plaintiff by the suit sought to have declared. He also asked to be appointed sebait or manager of the lands so dedicated.

(3.) A question has arisen as to whether the whole of mouzah Kesubpore was dedicated. In the deed of dedication only 11 annas were mentioned. Subsequently 5 annas seem to have been purchased by Manickram the sebait, and it would rather appear to have been assumed that the whole 16 annas had become subject to the dedication. In the view which their Lordships now take of the case, it is unnecessary to determine whether this judgment must be considered as a binding decision upon the parties as to the dedication of the entire 16 annas, or only of the 11. What was contemplated is that, the property being shewn to be debutter property and dedicated to family idols, a proper sebait should be appointed, who might bring a suit, or take other proceedings, to have the trusts so declared enforced, and so this declaration was added.