AMRITA LAL SHAHA Vs. GOSSAIN GANPAT GIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise oat of a suit instituted by the plaintiff Gossain Ganpat Gir as Shebait of the deities, Salgram and Shiva Thakur, to recover possession of the properties in dispute, alleged to be the Debutter of the said Thakurs, after setting aside the alienations thereof, said to have been improperly made by the defendant No. 1, the former Shebait.

(2.) One Amrita Gir, who belonged to the sect of "Giri," one of the ten classes of Dasnami Gossains, established the Thakurs Salgram and Shiva at Arapur in the District of Maldah. Persons belonging to the sect to which he belonged are bound to observe celibacy but can acquire properties and are succeeded by Chelas or disciples. Amrita Gir acquired certain properties and by his Will dedicated the properties acquired by him to the said deities, the exact nature of the dedication being one of the main questions in this case. By his Will he directed that on his death his Chela Bissonath Gir would be the Shebait and executor, and on the death of the latter his Chela grandson Alum Gir Gossain and on his death Udit Narain Gir, the Chela of Bissonath,would be appointed to the office, and carry on the Sheba, and perform other acts mentioned in the Will according to the custom and usages of the family. There were other provisions in the Will which will be noticed later on, After Amirta Gir s death, his Chela Bissonath Gir obtained Probate of his Will on the 30th April 1878, carried on the trusts, and with the surplus income of the properties acquired certain other properties. On his death his Chela Udit Narain Gir succeeded him as Shebait. Udit Narain made a Will on the 5th Chait 1310 (18th March 1910), by which he appointed his Gurubhai Ram Narain (the defendant No. J.) as the Shebait after his death. Ram Narain accordingly succeeded Udit Narain on his death and obtained Probate of his Will on the 14th June 1904. He appears to have been a man of immoral character. He neglected the Debsheba and other trusts of the Mutt and contracted debts. On the 9th August 1905 he applied under Section 90 of the Probate and Administration Act to the District Judge for permission to sell certain properties and having obtained the permission, sold the properties in respect of which permission was granted as well as some other properties. Some of the properties were sold to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and some others to the defendants Nos. 6 and 7; practically all the Debutter properties have been sold away.

(3.) It is alleged by the plaintiff (who belongs to the same order of Gossains) that the other Gossains belonging to the same community in the District of Maldah assembled, and having found that the defendant No. 1 was guilty of misconduct and had wasted the Debutter properties excommunicated him and by a Punchnama dated the 20th November 1906 removed him from the Shebaitship, appointed the plaintiff as Shebait as being the nearest and most preferential Gotia in the family to which Amirta Gir belonged. The plaintiff then applied for revocation of the Probate granted to the defendant No. 1 and was appointed administrator pendente lite, but subsequently (on the 26th May 1908) was permitted to withdraw his application for Letters of Administration with liberty to make a fresh one. He was also directed to vacate the office of administrator pendente lite. The plaintiff brought the present suit on the 8th November 1908 for declaration that the properties in suit are Debutter, that he is the Shebait, that the defendants had not acquired any, right under their purchase, and for recovery of possession of the properties and for other reliefs. The suit was decreed by the Court below and the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have preferred Appeal No. 22 of 1913, and the defendants Nos. 6 and 7 (and defendant No. 19 who was subsequent to the institution of the suit added as defendant) have preferred Appeal No. 23 of 1913.