HARENDRA NATH SINGHA RAY Vs. PURNA CHANDRA GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaint in this suit relates to five items of properties, which for the sake of convenience may be called A, B, C, D, and E. The plaintiff claims to be the reversionary heir of one Rashbehari Goswami. He also claims to be the shebait of the deity Nandadulal Thakur, installed by the ancestors of the said Rashbehari Goswami, on the ground that according to the rule and practice prevailing in the family, from the time of his ancestors, the shebaitship has all along vested in the heirs according to the law of inheritance. The plaint states that Rashbehari Goswami left a widow Tarini Debi, and one Susil Kumar alias Sachindra, whose widow is defendant 1, had set up a claim that he had been adopted by her as her son. The plaintiff seeks to have his title declared as owner in respect of properties B, C, D and E, and the title of the deity Nandadulal Thakur to property A and asks for recovery of possession of properties B, C, D and E as such owner and of property A as such shebait. According to the plaint properties A and B were in the possession of defendant 2, who claims to have obtained the same from Tarini Debi and Sachindra, by a conveyance and a lease respectively; property C is in the possession of defendant 3; property D is in the possession of defendant 4 and property B in the possession of defendant 5. It is alleged in the plaint that the three last- mentioned defendants were in collusion with each other and with defendant 1.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge held that the suit, in the form in which it was laid, was not maintainable. He gave the plaintiff an opportunity to elect as to how he would proceed with the suit and against which of the defendants; and on the plaintiff not having availed, of the opportunity, he dismissed the suit.

(3.) The District Judge held on appeal that the suit was maintainable and remanded it for trial on the merits. Defendant 2 has then preferred this appeal.