(1.) The first two appeals, F. A. 82 of 1939 and F. A. 40 of 1939, arise out of one and the same judgment which was pronounced by the Subordinate Judge, Second Court, Hooghly, on 9 November 1938, in a suit by a Hindu deity Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Jiu Thakur for the recovery of money lent, while the third F. A. 4 of 1942, is from a judgment of the same Court, but passed by a different Judge, dated 17 November 1941, in another suit in which one Kumar Krishna Banerjee claimed a declaration of his right to act as a shebait of the said deity in succession to his father who had admittedly been one of its shebaits. The appeals have been heard together, as many common questions of fact and law are involved, but the deity is not a party to the third appeal. Both the suits were decreed by the Court below.
(2.) In F.A. 40 of 1939, which is the main appeal in the money suit, the appellants are defendants 1 and 2. sons and heirs of the original borrower, Suresh Chandra Mookerjee, whose estate they now represent, and it is directed against the decree made against them by the trial Court. The other appeal, P. A. 32 of 1989, is by the plaintiff deity, and merely challenges the decision of the Court refusing to allow interest pendente lite on the sum decreed.
(3.) F. A. 82 of 1939. -- As regards the last mentioned appeal, we may state at once that in view of the provisions of the Bengal Money. Lenders Act, 1940, which came into force since it was filed, Mr. Gupta on behalf of the appellants has not thought it fit to press the appeal, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs to the principal defendants. No order is necessary on the application under Section 151, Civil P. C. Of the remaining two appeals, we propose to take up p. A. 40 of 1989 first, which will doubtless be subject to the result of the other appeal, P. A. 4 of 1942, so far as the question of representation of the plaintiff deity is concerned.