SURENDRAKRISHNA ROY Vs. SHREE SHREE ISHWAR BHUBANESHWARI THAKURANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have before us three appeals Nos. 23, 24 and 25 of 1931, by different parties- defendant in a suit brought by a Hindu deity on 22 January, 1929, for the purpose of establishing title and obtaining possession of, (a) four properties alleged to have been dedicated to the deity on 5 May 1888, and (b) certain mofussil properties alleged to have been purchased on behalf of the plaintiff deity by a conveyance, dated 5 April 1896. The plaintiff's claim in respect of one of the four properties comprised in the deed of 1888, namely, the property known as 45, Elliot Road was withdrawn at the trial and need not further concern us. The learned Judge, by his decree, dated 19 December 1930, has declared that the plaintiff is absolutely entitled to the other properties comprised in these two deeds free from all encumbrances. He has directed such of the defendants, as have been found by him to be in possession, to deliver up possession to the plaintiff and has given other forms of relief to the plaintiff as against mortgagee-defendants not in possession, He has directed, as against Brajanath De, that an account of mesne profits be taken. The other reliefs need not be mentioned here.

(2.) In Appeal No. 23, the appellant is Brajanath De, who, with his brother Rakhalchandra De, was a grantor of the deed of 5 May 1888, by which he was declared to be a shebait of the plaintiff deity. In Appeal No. 24, the appellant is Satyacharan De, the younger son of Rakhal. Satya appears to have been born in February, 1899. He is the son of Rakhal, by his second wife, whose name is Sreemati Thakamani Dasee. Appeal No. 25 is brought by two sets of mortgagees, who may be called the Ray defendants and the Mandal defendants, and who claim under mortgages made in. 1922 and 1924, respectively, by Pulinbihari De, the elder son of Rakhal. Pulin's estate is before the Court, it is represented by Mohini and Jamini, but we have already pointed out that Mohini should sue as plaintiff on his own account as well as on behalf of the idol and this amendment has without objection been ordered by us. By the deed of 1888, the two brothers Rakhal and Braja dedicated to the idol properties, which now may be regarded as four: (i) 30, Beniapukur Road, (ii) 46, 47 and 48, Phulbagan Road, (iii) 45, Elliot Road and (iv) 4, Royd Street.

(3.) Of these properties, though all are in the environs of Calcutta, only 4, Royd Street, is within the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court. The deed provides that, out of the income to be produced from the properties, a sufficient sum is to be set aside for repairs; then that the sheba is to be performed in a manner therein set forth; that Government securities are to be purchased out of the surplus income left after meeting these expenses and that, when a sufficient sum has in this way been accumulated; the shebaits are to cause tenanted houses to be built on the dedicated land and that, out of the increased surplus, buildings are to be erected for the residence and habitation of the heirs of the grantors. The deed states that the value of the properties granted as debuttar is Rs. 47,050.