PRASANNA DEB RAIKAT Vs. BENGAL DUARS BANK, LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are five appeals by the plaintiffs against as many decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Jalpaiguri dated 23 December 1932, by which he dismissed the plaintiff's suits in ejectment. The nature of the reliefs claimed in these five suits might be divided into two heads. The suits in which appeals Nos. 121, 122 and 125 arise were for the setting aside of permanent leases created by the previous shebaits of the deity Sree Sree Iswar Ram Chandra Bigraha, the appellant before us represented by Prasanna Deb Rakshit who claims to be the present shebait of the said deity. The other two appeals Nos. 123 and 124, arise out of suits in ejectment which have been brought on the ground that the defendants are temporary tenants of the deity on whom proper notices to quit have been served. All these suits having been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge the present appeals have been brought by the plaintiffs.

(2.) In order to understand the controversy raised by these appeals it is necessary to set forth the precise case made by the plaintiffs in these plaints on which they found their title. The case made in the plaints is that there was an idol of the name of Sree Sree Iswar Ram Chandra Bigraha which was installed at a very distant time, and it is said that the origin of this foundation is lost in obscurity; but the allegation is that some predecessor of Prasanna Deb Rakshit, who also figures as plaintiff 2 in these suits, in his own personal capacity apart from his capacity as the shebait of the deity installed-the deity of the name of Sree Sree Iswar Ram Chandra Bigraha, dedicated some land of taluk Bahadur and Lantari Nawabgunj for defraying the expenses of the Sheba and Puja of the deity; that for the purpose of carrying out the Sheba the ancestor of plaintiff 2 appointed a certain pious person as Pujari or Pujak, and on the death of the said person it was the plaintiff's ancestor who was entrusted with the appointment of the succeeding Pujari. The plaint after reciting this proceeds to narrate certain events which happened in 1290 B.S. corresponding to 1883. In that year while the charge of the Sheba and Puja of the said deity were entrusted with Sita Ram Bairagi the said Sita Ram Bairagi became negligent in the performance of the Sheba on account of his bad character and Jagadindra Deb Rakshit, the predecessor of plaintiff 2, removed him from the said work of shebaitship by a parwana which is dated 10 Agrahayan, 1290 B.S., and brought the property in his own management in the first instance and subsequently by another parwana the said Jagadindra passed an order appointing Buddhu Baishnavi, step mother of the said Sita Ram, as pujarini for taking over the charge of Sheba and Puja of the said deity.

(3.) It is further stated in the plaint that Budhu Baishnavi carried on the worship of the deity till the time of her death. It appears that in 1909 when there was a proceeding for record of rights the lands of Schs. Ka and Kha of the plaint were recorded in the name of the said Budhu Baishnavi as shebait of the said deity. Budhu Baishnavi died on 25 Aswin, 1316 B.S. during the pendency of the settlement operations and the lands which are the subject matter of these five suits came to be recorded as khas lands of plaintiff 2. At the time of the death of Budhu Baishnavi it is alleged the estate of plaintiff 2 came into the management of the Court of Wards; and the Court of Wards wanted to bring the deity and the property set apart for the sheba of the deity into the khas possession of the plaintiff. But it is stated that Sita Ram made an application to the Deputy Commissioner of Jalpaiguri who was in charge of the Court of Wards and obtained the charge of the worship of the deity and the management and preservation of the property set apart for the sheba of the deity along with it in order to carry on the work of sheba and puja. On the death of Sita Ram which happened on 17 Ashar 1331 B.S. the charge of sheba and puja of the deity under his management was with the consent of plaintiff 2 entrusted to his son Khagendra Nath Bairagi. Then comes the important allegations in para Section 8 and 9 of the plaint which are the foundation of the plaintiff's title suit in the present case.