UPENDRA NATH GHOSE Vs. BAIKUNTHA NATH GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit which was instituted by the plaintiffs for certain reliefs which are of a somewhat unusual character. The-plaintiffs case shortly stated was that their grandfather, Raj Krishna Ghose and Sri Ballav Ghose, the grand father of the defendants 1 to 8 and Kali Charan Ghose who was ths great-grandfather of defendant 10 and grandfather of the husband of defendant 9 were three brothers whose ancestor had installed a deity in their ancestral dwelling house, and the deity according to the plaintiffs went by the name of " Dayal " and according to the defendants " Sridhar, " that the deity is a Saligram Bigraha and there is daily worship of the deity at, the place where it was installed and that the said three brothers used to worship the deity every day as well as on special occasions, according to their shares which were equal. The plaintiffs alleged that in consequence of certain events that took place it is they and the principal defendants and one Rama Nath Ghose who are now solely interested in the said " Deity " and that they exercised their right of worship of the deity down to 1327 when the principal defendants denied their right and interfered with the exercise thereof.

(2.) The prayers that were made in the plaint were very unusual in their character and purported to treat the deity as a moveable chattel, in the nature of property which is capable of being owned and possessed by them and also of being partitioned in accordance with their respective shares. There was a prayer which was of a more reasonable character, namely, for a declaration of the plaintiff right to worship the deity and for an arrangement being made as regards the turns of worship as between the different cosharers so that the right of worship might be exercised in accordance with such turns. This prayer, however, appears not to have been pressed eventually and the relief that was claimed by the plaintiffs was confined more or less to the deity being treated as moveable property. Defendant 1 who was the only contesting defendant in the trial Court denied, the plaintiffs right altogether.

(3.) The trial Court decreed the suit in the following terms: That the suit be decreed with costs and future interest at 6 p.c.p.a. Plaintiffs title to the disputed deity as stated in the plaint be declared, and they be free to bring the deity to their new bare on the occasions of annual parbas and ceremonies such as Puspa Jatras, Puskarni Pratistas, Sradhs, marriages, Kali Pujas, Mansha Pujas, Radhastamis, Durga Pujas, Tulashi offerings in the month of Kartick, Nabannas in Agrahayan, Uttarayan Sankrantis, Sri Panchamis, Basanti Pujas, Dhaja Dwadasis, Sasthi Pujas, Annaprasans and Griha Prabeshas without interfering with the worship of the deity by the principal defendants and performance of ceremonies at their (moaning the defendants ) bari : that a perpetual injunction be issued on the principal defendants not to interfere with plaintiffs right to worship the deity as indicated above.