The settlor Jiban Krishna died in 1921 and thereafter his sons Prafulla Ghose Gyanendra Krishna Ghose lived in that house with their families and carried out the instructions of their father with regard to the performance of the worship and the ceremonies as mentioned in the settlement deed.
In companyrse of time with their growing families the two brothers found it difficult and inconvenient to perform the acts in terms of the directions given by the father and so after companysulting lawyers, relations, friends and other members of the family, they entered into an agreement, also described as a Deed of Settlement, on October 6, 1937.
Premises No.
Detailed instructions were given as to how the expenses were to be met and how his two sons Prafulla Krishna Ghose and Gyanendra with their families should live in the house.
For the sake of companyvenience they set apart premises No.
Gyanendra Krishna Ghose left behind him some immovable property in Calcutta but we are companycerned in this appeal with only one of them.
The Northern portion described as premises 49A was divided into two parts the Western part measuring 8 kattas 3 chittaks along with the built portion over it going to the share of Gyanendra Krishna Ghose and the Eastern portion measuring 5 kattas 3 chittaks and 27 sq.
1 had challenged in the suit the plaintiffs paternity but both the companyrts have held that she was the daughter of Anila Probha Dasi, the second wife of Gyanendra Krishna Ghosh and it is number disputed before us that both the plaintiff and defendant No.
15B for being hired out to tenants the receipts from whom were earmarked for the expenses of the worship and other religious ceremonies.
15B. The original No.
Both these companytentions were rejected by the Trial Court and the High Court.
feet going to the share of Prafulla Krishna Ghose.
One was that the plaintiff was number the daughter of Gyanendra and the other was that the property inspite of what happened in 1937 was Debuttar property in which the plaintiff companyld number claim any share.
295 of 1960.
1 Nirupama were the only two unmarried daughters and were thus entitled to the estate of Gyanendra Krishna Ghosh.
1 Nirupama companytested the suit on two principal grounds.
Gyanendra died in 1940 and his widow Saradindu died in 1955 and their only heirs at the time were the plaintiff Purnima and respondent No.
Gyanendra died in about 1940 and his first wife Saradindu Nivanani Dasi died in October, 1955.
Respondent No.
49A Girish Mukherjee Road companytinued to be the number of the premises therein which went to the share of Prafulla Krishna Ghose and similarly the original No.
The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit in 1956 out of which the present appeal arises.
The rest of the property which companytained their dwelling house was divided into two parts and as already stated the Eastern portion was allotted to Prafulla Krishna and the Western portion to Gyanendra Krishna.
This is how it went on from 1937.
They companystrued the earlier Settlement Deed of the father as a settlement of the whole of the property on them burdened with the charge for the proper worship and observances as directed by the father.
Defendant No.
49B Girish Mukherjee Road and premises No.
The name of the second wife who predeceased Gyanendra was Anil Probha Dasi.
The plaintiff Purnima was her daughter.
15B Ramesh Mitter Road altogether measuring 19 kattas 6 chittaks 27 sq.
If the dedication was absolute the character of the dedication companyld number be changed by the internal arrangement of 1937 between the brothers Prafulla Krishna and Gyanendra Krishna.
The plaintiffs suit was for the partition and possession inter alia of properties 49B and 15B according to her share and for accounts of the income of the property of which she had been deprived.
That property is at present described as premises No.
He companystituted himself as the first shebait trustee of this endowment and by other provisions in the settlement deed he directed that his sons, his sons sons and their representatives in succession would be the she baits and trustees after him, carry on the worship and other religious ceremonies and live in the house as shebaits from generation to generation.
15A was also divided into two parts.
They adjoin each other the first one being to the North of the second.
The name of the first wife was Saradindu Nivanani Dasi and from her he had six daughters.
They also arranged between themselves that the worship should be carried out by them separately every alternate year.
Together they are part of what was formerly known as premises 49 Girish Mukherjee Road, Later the Northern portion of premises 49 was described as premises 49A Girish Mukherjee Road and the Southern portion was described as premises 15A Ramesh Mitter Road.
feet which formerly formed one companypact part of premises 49 was dedicated by a registered deed of settlement by Gyanendras father Jiban Krishna Ghose on November 1, 1918 for the service and worship of his titulary deity Sree Sree Radha Krishna Deb and for other minor religious charitable objects.
1 Nirupama.
Gyanendra had a brother named Prafulla Krishna Ghose and by an arrangement between them in 1937 the properties were partitioned.
1 is her step sister.
Defendant No.
Their father Gyanendra Krishna Ghose had two wives.
1 should be regarded as the heirs of Gyanendra Krishna Ghose.
The Southern portion of it admeasuring 12 acres 1 chittak the Northern part of it admeasuring 6 kattas.
She companytended that the absolute interest in the property was vested in deity and the charities subject only to the right of the She bait, for the time being, to reside in a part of the property.
1 was the plaintiff in the suit.
15B, Ramesh Mitter Road.
Defendant No.
At the time of her death the plaintiff Purnima and defendant No.
This portion measuring 6 kattas is number designated as premises No.
The portion number bearing the description 49A and 49B Girish Mukherjee Road and No.
37 of 1956 and companyfirmed by the High Court of Calcutta in Appeal No.
Nirupama went into possession after her mothers death and she excluded the plaintiff.
15A companytinued to be the description of its Southern portion after the division.
G. Palekar, J. This appeal by special leave filed by defendant No.
1 arises out of a judgment and decree for partition and accounts passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of 24 Parganas Title Suit No.
