NIRMAL CHANDRA BANERJEE Vs. JYOTI PROSAD BANNERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the plaintiff in Suit No. 4 of 1937 and it raises a question with regard to the right of a shebait under an idol called Sridhar Jiu Thakur. The following genealogical table will show the position of the parties.

(2.) The idol was the ancestral deity of the four sons of Harish Chandra Banerjee. In the year 1286 B. S. or 1890 A. D., a deed of partition (Ex, B) was drawn up amongst the three brothers, Bidhu, Priya and Karunamoy and Kumud, son of the deceased daughter of Harish Chandra. By that document, property yielding an income of Rs. 26 odd was allotted for the worship of the idol and the puja was performed according to the deed by the aforesaid four persons in rotation. Bidhu, who was a Subordinate Judge and had no children, built a Ghat, two rooms for the Thakur and a Dolemancha which he dedicated to the idol in 1890 or 1891. He also performed the pujas of the idol so long as he was alive. He died in 1909. On 1st January 1908 he executed a will (Ex. 3) by which he gave G. P. Notes of Rs. 10,000 for the worship of the idol and appointed as shebaits his nephews Nirmal Chandra Bannerjee, the present appellant, Hari Mohan Bannerjee and his grand-nephew Nihar Ranjan Banerjee. The will further provided that each shebait would have power to nominate a successor in his absence (abartamane) and if any shebait died without nominating a successor, then the eldest among his heirs would be the shebait.

(3.) It is not disputed that the provisions of the will were objected to by any of them. The will was probated and three shebaits mentioned therein undertook to perform the sheba of the idol. In 1913 a deed of agreement was drawn up (Ex. 4) by which it was arranged that the sheba was to be performed by rotation. As a matter of fact Nirmal, the plaintiff-appellant, had to stay away on business. Nihar who was a Deputy Magistrate, had also to stay away and the result was that Hari Mohan was the person who was left in charge of the worship. It is not disputed that Hari Mohan lost his character and money with the result that the Thakur was turned out of the Thakur bari and kept in the house of a priest since 1914. Hari Mohan's own house was sold and he occupied the Thakurbari with his wife. The latter was also a woman of bad character. Further the amount of Rs. 10,000 which was given to the Thakur by Bidhu was given as a loan to one Suresh on a handnote in favour of Hari Mohan.