SREE SREE JAGANNATH JEW THAKUR Vs. ANANTA ADHIKARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts involved in this appeal, shortly stated are as follows: The plaintiffs are certain idols established many years ago by the predecessor-in-interest of the present shebait Raja Narasingh Malla Ugal Sanda Deb. He is a ward under the Court of Wards and is represented by the Manager, Khagendra Nath Banerji. On behalf of the idols the case as formulated in the Court of first instance was that defendants 1 to 6 were pujaris of the said idols, and have been so for a long period, that in fact many years ago the ancestor of defendants 1 to 6 was appointed priest or pujari of the said idols, that certain properties were made over to the said ancestor in order that he should meet the daily and occasional expenses of the worship of the idols out of the usufruct of the properties and that there should be no wages or salary attached to his office as pujari but that he should be able to remunerate himself out of the said usufruct and would generally act under the supervision of the idol's she-baits. The allegation further was that in 1329 it was ascertained that in respect of certain of the properties so made over to the ancestor of defendants 1 to 6 the said defendants had been guilty of misconduct in that they had granted a permanent lease to a certain person and in respect of certain other properties they had granted an usufructuary mortgage. It was also alleged that there had been neglect by defendants 1 to 6 in the performance of the duties of their office as pujaris and that in the events which had happened it was prayed that it might be declared that the alienation referred to in the plaint were not binding as against the deities and that the Raja as such shebait was entitled to dismiss defendants 1 to 6 from, their office as pujaris, they having been guilty of misconduct.

(2.) Various defences were taken by the defendants, the principal ones being that the lands which had been granted to the ancestor of the defendants were so granted for the performance of the worship not of the plaintiff idols but of certain other idols in the house of defendants 1 to 6.

(3.) It may be stated at the outset that both Courts came to the conclusion that there was no substance whatsoever in the defendants contention and that the finding of both the Courts was that the lands in question were the debutter properties of the idols referred to in the plaint in this suit and that the lands had not been granted to the ancestor of defendants 1 to 6 for defraying the expenses of the worship of any idols other than those referred to in the plaint.