PROMATHA NATH MULLICK Vs. PRADYUMNA KUMAR MULLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this suit seeks a declaration that he is entitled to remove certain deities named respectively Thakur Sree Sree Radha Shamsunderjee, Thakurani Sree Sree Radharanee and a Saligramsila known as Sree Sree Rajrajeswar from the Thakurbari, where they are ordinarily located, to his residence during his turn of worship.

(2.) The deities above named Were established by one Moti Lal Mullick, the grand father of the plaintiff and of the second defendant and the great-grandfather of the fast defendant. During Moti Lal's lifetime the deities were located la his family dwelling house in Pathuriaghatta Street Moti Lal died in 1846 leaving a widow Sreemutty Rangomoni Dassi and an adopted son, Jadu Lal Mullick aged two years. Moti Lal left a Will dated the 3 September 1846 and thereby appointed his wife so long as Jadu Lal did not attain the age of 20 malik or proprietor and attorney for the protection and care of the whole of his estate. And he left certain funds out of which his wife was to defray the expenses of the daily shebu and of the festivals of the Thakur and Thakurani so long as his adopted, son had not attained the age of 20, upon the happening of which event he directed his wife to make over the whole of the property to him fully. Jadu Lal, who attained his majority, pulled down the family dwelling house and rebuilt it partly on No. 60 Pathuriaghatta Street and partly on No. 7 Prasanno Kumar Tagore Street. Jadu Lal, who on Moti Lal's death became shebait of the deities, acquired a piece of land No. 1 Prasanno Kumar Tagore. Street, and erected thereon a Thakurbari for the Thakur Radha Shamsunderjee and located and worshipped this deity there. By a declaration of trust dated the 26th. April 1888, Jadu Lal declared that he, his heirs, executors, administrators and representatives should for ever hold this la nd to and for the use of the Thakur Radha Shamsunderjee to the extent that the Thakur might be located and worshipped in the premises. A power was reserved by the Instrument to the settlor, his heirs, executors, administrators or representatives to "revoke the trusts upon providing and dedicating for the location and worship of the Thakur another suitable Thakurbari of the same or greater value and the settlor provided that; unless and until this was done the Thakur should not on any account be removed from the said premises, The settlor further provided that he should be the sole she bait of the idol during his lifetime and that his male heirs should alone be the she baits after his death and that in case of disagreement between any future she baits the worship should be conducted by yearly turns Jadu Lal died on the 5 February 1894 leaving him surviving his widow Sreemutty Saraswati and three sons Ananthnath, who has since died leaving the first defendant his heir, the plaintiff and the second defendant and four daughters. He left a Will but I understand that the provisions are not material for the purposes of this suit. In a subsequent appointment of new trustees of the Will the Thakurbari appears as secular property of the estate. An amicable partition took place between Jadu Lal's three sons and the Commissioner of Partition, the late Mr. W.C. Bannerjee, made his award as Commissioner of Partition, on the 3 June 1899. By the said award the properties which formed the family dwelling house of Jadu Lal were allotted to Anathnath Mullick and to the defendant Manmathanath Mullick and the plaintiff got no part therein and ultimately built himself a residence in Cornwallis Street where he now resides. Disputes arose between the parties to this suit with regard to the provisions of the Will of Sreemutty Rangomoni Dasi, the mother of Jadu Lal who had devised certain property for the worship of the Thakur Radha Shamsunderjee and in Suit No. 799 of 1904 Mr. Bhupendra Nath Basu was appointed to frame a scheme of worship of the deity and to partition the residue of Rangomoni's estate Mr. Basu directed that the worship of the deity should be performed by the parties and their heirs by turns of one year each, the first turn commencing from the first Baisack 1317 and going to the 1 defendant in the present suit, the 2nd turn going to the present plaintiff and commencing on the 1 Baisack 1318 and the 3 turn going to the second defendant and commencing on the 1 Baisack 1319.

(3.) The dispute in this suit arose in this way. It appears that the plaintiff during his turns of worship in 1911 and 1914 removed the deities to his house in Cornwallis Street and worshipped them in the Puja Dalan which he has made there but when his turn of worship came round in 1917 the first defendant, who was then of age, and the second defendant refused to allow the deities to be moved relying upon the provisions of the deed poll, executed by Jadu Lal on the 26 April 1888. 4. The dispute which I have got to decide is whether the defendants were right in their refusal or whether the plaintiff is entitled at his recurring turns of worship each 3 year to move the deities to Cornwalls Street and worship them there.