NIRMAL CHANDRA DAS Vs. MOHITOSH DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The history of this litigation which has culminated in this appeal carries us back to the year 1242 B.S., corresponding to 1835. The suit is for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession of some six rooms as part of 12 temples of God Shiva in Navadwip. The case made in the plaint which is pretty long is that the ancestor of some of the plaintiffs, one Gurudas, was the possessor of 16 annas share of the land on which these 12 temples are built in succession to their predecessor, in their own right, and in the right acquired by adverse possession against others for long over 12 years, as shebaits of Sri Sri Iswar Dwadasha Shiva Thakurs and as heirs of their ancestors. After setting forth in their plaint the numerous events that happened including devolution of rights and interests on the death of the different members of the family who are named in the genealogical tree to which we will presently refer, the plaintiffs alleged that they have been dispossessed, as a result of certain proceedings under Section 103, Ben. Ten. Act, from these six rooms by the defendants. The relationship between the parties to the suit are shown in the genealogical tree which is appended below.

(2.) It appears from the said tree that the plaintiffs and the defendants to the present suit derived their descent from their common ancestor, one Asananda Das. Both in the Court below and before us the accuracy of the genealogical tree both in respect of the several descendants of Asananda as also in respect of the dates of the death of the numerous members of the family, have been admitted. It appears from the said tree that Asananda died leaving behind him four sons, Ram Prosad Das, Har Chandra Das, Iswar Chandra Das and Deb Chandra Das. Ram Prosad died in 1808 leaving behind him his only son Guru Das who was the ancestor of plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Hara Chandra Das, the second son of Asananda died in 1828 leaving behind him two sons Madhusudhan and Biswambhar. Biswambhar died childless and Madhusudhan left behind a son Raj Krishna. Raj Krishna had four sons whose names occur in the tree as Haritosh, Hari Bhusan, Hariballav and Harimoy, plaintiffs 8 to 11. Iswar, the third son of Asananda died in 1818 leaving behind him a widow Drabamoyee and a son. Satkowri died unmarried in 1822 leaving behind him his mother Drabamoyee who died in 1877. Deb Chandra Das the youngest son of Asananda, died in 1832 leaving behind him his two widows Nrityamoyee who died in 1848 and Pearimoni who died in 1849. Deb Chandra Das had a son Bireswar through his wife Pearimoni who was born blind and Bireswar died in 1861, leaving behind him his son Krishna Chandra who is the father of defendants 1 and 2 and the father-in-law of defendants 3 and 4.

(3.) It is necessary here to recount a certain circumstance which would show that defendants 1 and 2 did not inherit the 4 annas share of Deb Chandra Das because Bireswar was born blind and the 4 annas share of Deb Chandra did not therefore descend to Bireswar. There was a litigation between Bireswar and Guru Das and as a result of the Full Bench decision of this Court which is reported in Kalidas Das V/s. Krishan Chandra Das (1869) 2 Beng L R 103, it was held that Guru Das did succeed to the 4 annas share of Deb Chandra Das's estate. The next event of importance to which reference need be made is with reference to the 4 annas share of Iswar Chandra Das which after his death devolved on his son Satkowri and after Satkowri's death in 1882 devolved on his mother Drabamoyee and continued in Drabamoyee till the time of her death in 1877. The case made in the plaint is that Guru Das erected these 12 temples so far back as in the year 1242 on joint lands. He dedicated these temples to god Shiva. The inscription on the tablet was in his name and he possessed these debuttar properties exclusively in his own right and as a cosharer being excluded from any interest in the debuttar properties. Question has arisen whether this was a dedication of the completest kind or it was merely an incomplete debuttar in the sense that it was a secular property charged with ancestral worship. The Subordinate Judge has taken the latter view, viz., that it was an incomplete debuttar. According to him it was a nominal debuttar being really secular property charged with ancestral worship. We will have to say something on this later. To continue the history as given by the plaintiffs it was stated that Guru Das excluded all other co-sharers from the very beginning. But later it was admitted that Raj Krishna was taken in Guru Das's family, and therefore the heirs of Raj Krishna, plaintiffs 8 to 11, have got some interest in the debuttar properties.