DEBENDRA NARAIN SARKAR Vs. SATYA CHARAN MUKERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit commenced by the plaintiffs for a declaration of the plaintiffs right to supervise the Saradiya Haragouri puja in village Narainpur, to prepare and offer certain offerings on that occasion and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with plaintiffs right of management. The defence is a denial of plaintiffs right of management. The Court of first instance decreed the suit with costs and declared plaintiffs right of management over the worship of the image Hara Gouri Thakurani, performed annually at the autumn season at village Narainpur, and also made certain declarations with regard to plaintiffs exclusive right to offer offerings. On appeal by the defendants, the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan dismissed the plaintiffs suit, holding that such a suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court. As the suit has been thrown out on the ground that such a suit cannot be entertained in the civil Court, it becomes necessary to set out in greater details the precise scope of the suit.

(2.) The plaintiffs state in their plaint that one Nanda Kumar Sarkar, who had 9 annas share in Narainpur putni taluk, established the autumnal worship (Saradiya Puja) of Iswar Haragouri Thaku-rani in the said village of Narainpur with the help of the seven annas co-sharer of Narainpur patni taluk. And in order to build a mandir (temple) for performing the worship of the said image he purchased one and half cottas of land from one Munjari Dasi on the 9 of Aswin, 1257 B.S., and erected a house thereon. It was further alleged that the said Nanda Kumar Sarkar, in order to defray the expenses of the Saradiya puja, dedicated several bighas of land, and, with the voluntary contributions of the tenants of the village Narainpur, and, with the annual stipend of Rs. 3 settled by him from the zemindari sheresta, he performed annually the autumnal puja under his own supervision, meeting the balance of his expenses from his own pocket. Plaintiffs further alleged that so long as Nanda Kumar was alive he, and, after his death, his son and the father of plaintiff 3, and after his death, plaintiff 1, and, in the absence of plaintiff 1, his sister's son Gorachand Roy, under plaintiff l's order, had performed the autumnal puja. That in 1328 B.S., with the evil intention of excluding the plaintiffs from the puja, the defendants in collusion with one another, set up defendant 1 as the karta (manager) and excluded the plaintiffs from the puja and had prevented the plaintiffs from supervising the said puja, from preparing the Ulatkhansa and had obstructed the plaintiffs in offering Purnapatra, Pancha Gabya and Pancha Pataka and had prevented the ladies of the plaintiffs house from performing the Olata (farewell) ceremony of the goddess on the Bijoya day, and that at the time of the Sandhi puja, the plaintiffs having taken a naibedya for offering, the defendants prevented the priest from accepting the same, and defendant 1 had kicked out the said naibedya with his feet.

(3.) The defendants in their defence alleged in para. 6 of the written statement that the puja has never been performed under the supervision and orders of his son, after the death of Nanda Kumar Sarkar, the father of plaintiff 3, and after his death plaintiff 1 and in the absence of plaintiff 1 of his sister's son Gora Chand till 1327 B.S.; nor is there or was any reason for their so doing and that the allegations in para. 4 of the plaint are false. There was no reason of the puja being performed under the management of the plaintiffs or under that of any members of their family; nor has it been so done at any time.