DHARNIDHAR SINGHA ROY Vs. SATISH CHANDRA GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule obtained by certain of the plaintiffs in Suit No.28 of 1922 in the Court of the District Judge of Hooghly calling on the defendant and three other persons to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court on account of the acts charged in the petition and in the affidavits annexed thereto. The proceedings are taken under the Contempt of Courts Act 1926, Section 2 (1) of which confers upon the High Courts the same jurisdiction, powers, and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of Courts subordinate to them as they have and exercise in respect of contempts of themselves. The suit was instituted under Section 92, Civil P. C., with the sanction of the Collector of Hooghly under Section 93, Civil P. C., for the removal of the defendant from his position as Mahant of the Tarakeswar mutt and for the framing of a scheme for the management of the mutt. Among the properties in suit are an estate called Mauza Jagannathpur and a group of properties described in the estate papers as Maiji Sharista.

(2.) The plaintiffs case is that both Mauza Jagganathpur and Maiji Sharista are debuttar properties; the defendant maintains that Mauza Jagannathpur is secular and the property of his chela Probhat Chandra Giri opposite party No. 2, and that Maiji Sharista is also secular and the property of one Kashinath Missir. The defendant says that Kashinath Missir is his nephew (sister's son), the plaintiffs say that he is the defendant's illegitimate son. On 7 July 1925 a receiver was appointed by the District Court of all the properties in suit with power to ascertain such properties and take possession. By virtue of such order it is said that the receiver took possession of Jagannathpur and Maiji Sharista. The order of the District Court was modified by this Court by two orders of 8 January 1926 and 20 March 1926, the result of which was that the appointment of the receiver was confirmed as regards the properties admitted to be debuttar, but he was directed to make over possession of 30 specific properties claimed by the defendant as his nij properties. Those 30 properties did not include Jagannathpur or Maiji Sharista.

(3.) The plaintiffs appealed against the order of the High Court to His Majesty in Council and pending the appeal execution of the order was stayed. On 15 December 1927, the plaintiffs appeal was dismissed and thereafter the 30 properties already mentioned were made over to the defendant. On 6 November 1929 the learned District Judge decreed the suit and ordered the removal of the defendant from the mahantship. He found all the properties in suit were debuttar and directed that pending the appointment of another mahant the receiver should take possession of all thy properties including those claimed by the defendant as his nij properties. The defendant appealed to this Court and on 20 December 1929 obtained an order for stay of execution of the decree in so far as it directed possession of the nij properties to be made over to the receiver. Ever since the receiver was first appointed complaints have been frequent before the learned District Judge that the defendant and his agents have been obstructing the receiver in the performance of his duties.