KALIKANTA CHATTERJEE Vs. SURENDRA NATH CHAKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration of the plaintiff's right as a co-sharer shebait of the deity Ugra Tara at Shekarpur (District Backerganj), for a decree for recovery of possession of the said share jointly with the proforma defendants according to the terms of worship, for an injunction to restrain the principal defendants from interfering with - the plaintiff's right and for other reliefs. The proforma defendants are said to be the co-sharer shebaits. The defence, among other things, was that the plaintiff has no right as a shebait of the deity installed in 1319, and that be is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. The Court of first instance declared the plaintiff's right as a co-sharer shebait, gave a decree for possession of one-fifth share, but disallowed the claim for injunction and mesne profits. That decree was confirmed on appeal by the Court of appeal below. The defendants have appealed to this Court.

(2.) It appears that there is a shrine at Shekarpur in the District of Backerganj. It is one of the well-known 51 Mahapittas scattered all over India. There was an image of the deity Tara installed in a temple at the place. The image was broken about 40 years ago by some ruffians, fragments of which were subsequently recovered from a tank. The temple also fell down at that time. Thereafter the worship of the deity was carried on with a ghot (earthenpot) on an adjoining piece of land. The worship appears to have been neglected, and the shrine lost its popularity. In 1319, the defendant No. 2 who had been a co-sharer of the taluk within which the site of the old temple was situated, conceived the idea of restoring the glory of the shrine, and it was mainly by his exertions that subscriptions were raised from the public, (ha himself contributing largely from his own pocket), a new temple was erected, and a new image was brought from Benares and installed in the new temple. A board of trustees was constituted consisting of several respectable people including some pleaders and the defendant No. 2 himself. The plaintiff and his co-shebaita of the old temple were at that time carriying on the worship with the earthen pot on the adjoining land. When the new image was installed in the new temple, the plaintiff and his co-sharers repudiated the new image and gave out that the real shrine was at the place where the ghat was being worshipped. The co-sharers of the plaintiffs however came to an arrangement with the defendants, and they agreed to "carry on supervision and necessary arrangements for the worship " and to perform under the guidance of the trustees all things necessary for the convenience of the pilgrims and every other business connected with the temple, in consideration of their getting a certain share of the profits. The plaintiff however though at first disposed to, did not, execute the agreement.

(3.) A question was raised in the Court of first instance as to whether the plaintiff and his co- sharers were shebaits of the deity represented by the old image. But that question was found in favour of the plaintiff and that finding has not been questioned. The main contentions raised before us are (I) that the deity represented by the new image installed in 1319 is not the same as that represented by the old one; (II) that there could be no restoration of the old image in the present case according to the shastras; (III) that in any case the decree passed is bad.