On 1st of April, 1921, Satish sold this leasehold interest in respect to the palas to one Ram Rakhal Ghose.
Ram Rakhal admittedly got possession of the office of shebait and began to exercise his rights as such on and from the 1st of April, 1921.
The second defendant is the receiver, who has been placed in charge of the properties of Palani Bala in a guardianship proceeding pending before the District Judge of 24Parganas.
Govinda, who was the father of the plaintiffs and who got 5, days pala every month in his share, sold his interest in the shebaiti to Haran, a brother of his, and the result was that Haran acquired 10 days pala every mouth or one third share in the entire shebaiti right.
On 17th June, 1920, Rajlakshmi granted an ijara lease of her shebaiti right for a term of two years to one Satish Chandra Dey.
1 Iswar died leaving six sons as his heirs and they were Ashutosh, Govinda, Gopal, Sadananda, Trailokhya and Haran.
Rajlakshmi died on 22nd December, 1943, and the two plaintiffs, who are the two surviving sons of Govinda, filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of possession of this one third shebaiti right of Haran on the allegation that they were the next heirs of Haran at the time of Rajlakshmis death.
The learned Judges while affirming all the other findings arrived at by the trial judge disagreed with the latter on the question of limitation.
The subject matter of dispute is one third share of shebaiti right in respect of a private debutter dedicated to an idol known by the name of Dakshineshwar Jew and situated at a village called Dhop Dhopi within the district of 24 Parganas in West Bengal.
Nagendra had died in the meantime and the first and the principal defendant in the suit is his daughter Palani Bala, who is a minor and is represented by her husband as guardian.
48 of 1949.arising out of Judgment and Decree dated the 22nd December, 1948, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court,24 Parganas, in Title Suit No.
Thus Nagendra in addition to what he had inherited from his own father came to hold the entirety of a third share in the shebaiti right, represented by 10 days pala every mouth, which was previously hold by Haran.
On the death of the widow, the interest vested in the plaintiffs.
Surendra died some time afterwards and on 20th of June, 1925, his widow Tarakali sold her husbands share in the shebaiti right to Nagendra, her husbands brother.
It is said further that as Rajlakshmi and Nagendra were both companyshebaits of the deity, the possession of the latter companyld number have been adverse to the former, they being in the position of companysharers in law and numberhing like ouster being alleged or proved in this case.
1 and the main companytention raised was that as the sale of her shebaiti right by Rajlakshmi, the widow of Haran, was a void transaction which did number create any right in the transferee, the possession of Ram Rakhal and after him his vendees, who were the predecessors of defendant No.
There was a claim also for mesne profits from the date of the widows death.
The case of the plaintiffs, in substance, is that the one third share of the shebaiti right, which was held by Haran during his lifetime, devolved upon his widow Rajlakshmi who had only the restricted rights of a Hindu widow in respect to the same.
19 of 1952.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated 19th June, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta Das and Guha JJ.
Haran died without any issue leaving him surviving, his widow Rajlakshmi as his sole heir under the Hindu law and Rajlakshmi companytinued to hold this one third share of shebaiti right along with other properties of the deceased.
By a deed of companyveyance dated the 7th of November, 1921, Rajlakshmi made an out and out sale of her shebaiti right in favour of Ram Rakhal and twenty days after this purchase, that is to say, on 27th November, 1921, Ram Rakhal in his turn sold this interest to Nagendra and Surendra, two of the sons of Trailokhya.
These six sons when they divided the properties of their father, divided the shebaiti right also which devolved upon them in six equal shares, and this division was by the method known as palas or turns of worship, which means that to each one of the sons was allotted the right of worshipping the deity for 5 days every month and during these days he alone was to discharge the functions of the shebait and receive the emoluments attached to the office.
The defendants 3 and 4 are the surviving descendants of Iswar who hold the remaining interest in the shebaiti right.
Iswar Ashutosh Govind Gopal Sadanan Talokya Haran dead m. Rajlakshmi Surendra Sashi adopted Tarakali Abani w Deft.
1 therefrom.
Previous to that, on 6th of August, 1920, Ram Rakhal had himself taken a lease from Rajlakshmi of her shebaiti right for a period of 5 years, this lease to companymence at the close of the previous lease in favour of Satish.
1 companysequently acquired an indefeasible title to this third share in the shebaiti right by adverse possession and the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation.
who were the nearest heirs of Haran at the time of Rajlakshmis death.
The following genealogical table will make clear the relationship of the several persons who figure as parties.
They, accordingly, prayed for being put in possession of this one third share of the shebaiti right represented, as stated aforesaid, by 10 days pala every month after evicting the defendant No.
53 of 1944.
The deity is an ancient one and its reputed founder and first shebait was one Udhab Chandra Pandit.
to the present litigation as between themselves and also to their companymon ancestor.
Gradually, a custom grew up in the family according to which these palas companyld be bought and sold or otherwise alienated amongst the members of the shebaits family.
1 , was adverse against all the shebaits, and the defendant No.
3 Bala Deft.
The trial companyrt decided this point in favour of the plaintiffs, while the High Court has taken a companytrary view in appeal.
4 Kali Nirmal Plff.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
53 of 1944.
1 Plff.
Against this judgment, the defendants 1 and 2 took an appeal to the Calcutta High Court and the appeal was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of Das and Guha JJ.
The trial Judge by his judgment dated the 22nd December 1948, overruled the pleas taken by the defendant and gave the plaintiffs a decree.
The facts material for our present purpose are number in dispute and the companytroversy between the parties practically centres round one short point, namely, whether or number the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation.
Several other companytentions were raised but they are number material for our present purpose.
in Appeal from Original Decree No.
In the plaint a description has been given of the temple, its appurtenant lands and also of the structures standing thereupon, but there is numberprayer for possession in respect of these properties.
C. Chatterjee A. K. Dutt, with him for the appellants.
The suit was resisted on behalf of defendant No.
Panchanan Ghose Radha Kanta Bhattacharya, with him for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJEA J. This appeal is on behalf of the plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated June 19, 1950, reversing, on appeal, those of the Subordinate Judge, Third Court, 24 Parganas, passed in Title Suit No.
January 16.
2 Moni Sarat Surendra Nagendra dead adopted Bidhu by Gopal Palani Deft.
