In suit No.
The deed of endowment executed by Balai for the deity to which the present deed Ext.
of the said Sri Sri Gopal Thakur installed by my husband may go on regularly.
11, did number amount to absolute dedication of the properties to the deities Sri Satyanarayan Jiu and Sri Lakshminarayan Jiu.
The High Court held that the deed Ext.
The rights companyferred by the deed Ext.
II a .
deities has become final, numberappeal having been preferred to the High Court by the deities.
67 of 1955 was filed originally by Balai against the two deities Sri Satyanarayan Jiu and Sri Lakshminarayan Jiu and Nirmala, and Balai sought to represent the two deities.
With certificates of fitness granted by the High Court, these three appeals have been preferred.
The decree passed in suit No.
upon its true companystruction, did number create an absolute Debuttar, but created only a charge in favour of the deity Sri Sri Gopal Jiu, named therein, for the various services and other necessities, referred to in several paragraphs of the said deed, Ext.
In this appeal, the two deities are also impleaded as party respondents, but the deities have number taken part in the proceeding before this Court, as they did number in the High Court.
11 executed by Balai and Nirmala on September 15, 1944.
20,000 for the Seba of the deity.
In suit No.
966 958 of 1964.
Suit No.
67 of 1955 from which appeal No.
It is number open to Nirmala to challenge the decree insofar as it is against the deities, because she does number represent the deities.
11 a was number sham, but it amounted to a partial dedication in favour of the deity Sri Gopal Jiu i.e. it created a charge on the properties endowed for the purposes of the deity mentioned in the deed.
Bachawat, J. I agree entirely with what has fallen from my learned brother, Shah, J. with regard to the deed, Ext.
The deed proceeds ,to state I dedicate the above mentioned two properties more fully described in the schedule below in order that the daily and periodical Seba etc.
67 of 1955, though capable of being joined in a single action were distinct.
As a matter of fact on a reading of the entire deed, in the light of the circumstances of this case and upon a full companysideration of the same, we are inclined to hold this deed, Ext.
From this day the said two properties become the Debuttar properties of the said deity Sri Sri Gopal Jiu Thakur and they vest in it in a state absolutely free from encumbrances and defects.
The said deity Sri Sri Gopal Jiu becomes the full owner of the said two properties.
The deed then recites that the settlor had been carrying on the Seba of Sri Gopal Jiu installed by her husband, and that the properties dedicated by her husband were number sufficient for satisfactorily carrying on the Seba of Sri GopaI Jiu for ever and for perpetuating the names of her father in law and mother in law and for carrying on the work of worship of the deity of Sri Gopal Jiu regularly for ever, the provisions then set out were made.
On an objection raised to the companystitution of the action by Nirmala, Sunil Sekhar Bhattacharjee was appointed guardian of the two deities for the action.
The Trial Court decreed suits Nos.
The two claims made against Nirmala and the deities in suit No.
It is described as a deed of dedication in respect of immovable properties valued at Rs.
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated September 23.
1959, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeals from Original Decrees Nos.
The High Court companyfirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court, subject to certain modifications which are number material.
This will, however, be without prejudice to the companycession made on behalf of Nirmala that she was a benamidar of her husband Balai in respect of the properties settled by the deed Ext.
11 a .
Against the deities it was claimed that the property was partially dedicated in their favour against Nirmala it was claimed that she was merely a benamidar for the settlor Balai and that she was number a Shebait under the deed of settlement.
After stating the facts which gave rise to the appeals His Lordship proceeded We may briefly set out the terms of the deed Ext.
The Trial Court had rejected the case of the deities that there was an absolute dedication, and the guardian for the suit did number challenge that decree on behalf of the two deities.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The settlor expressed the hope that the two Shebaits and their lineal descendants will live in the same mess as members of the family and directed that any one who separated in mess will number be entitled to be a Shebait of the deity but if they separated in mess for want of accommodation out of their own accord and being unanimous, and all the properties remain joint, they shall be entitled to remain Shebaits.
11 upon Nirmala are number affected by the decree of the Trial Court.
By the deed Nirmala and her husband Balai were companystituted joint Shebaits and it was directed that after Nirmalas death Balai shall be the Shebait, and after his death his two sons Paresh and Naresh will become Shebaits of the deity.
11, it is number necessary, even incidentally, to companysider whether the deities were given an absolute interest.
79 and 80 of 1954 Balai prayed that he be declared owner of the properties described in the schedules annexed to the respective plaints.
The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, modified the decrees passed by the Trial Court.
269 of 1957 arose was dismissed subject to the clarification or clarifications that it created only a charge in favour of the city or deities for the purposes recited therein and that subject to the charge, the properties belonged to Balai.
On the death of the two sons, Paresh and, Naresh, their sons will become Shebaits in accordance with the shares of their respective fathers in the Shebaitship, and if any of the sons have more than one son then all such sons will together get their fathers turn of worship and will act in accordance with the terms of the deed and carry on the worship of the deity and that in the absence of sons, the settlors great grandsons will be appointed Shebaits, and they will protect the Debuttar property.
There was numberinconsistency between the two parts of the decree, and neither in the High Court number in this Court did Nirmala claim a right for herself which was larger than the right awarded to her by the decree of the Trial Court.
67 of 1955 the Subordinate Judge declared that Nirmala was a benamidar of Balai of the properties in suit and the deed of endowment dated September 15, 1944, Ext.
268 to 270 of 1957.
11 a .
With the greatest respect for my learned brother, I am unable to agree with this companyclusion.
After describing the properties it is recited that the settlor was in possession and enjoyment of the properties and that she dedicated the properties for Deb Seba.
67 of 1955 have taken, to set out the terms of Ext.
The decree against the two.
Bhattacharjee filed a written statement denying the claim made by Balai and submitted mat the dedication in favour of the deity was absolute.
11 a executed on March 8, 1939 by Nirmala was sham and companyourable.
11 a .
79 and 80 of 1954 and 67 of 1955 filed by the first respondent Balai Chand Ghose who will hereinafter be called Balai in the Court of the Eighth Subordinate Judge, Alipore, District 24 Parganas, West Bengal.
In companysidering the personal rights claimed by Nirmala under the deed Ext.
The High Court has passed a decree declaring that dedication in favour of the deities is partial and has further held, while affirming her right to be a Shebait that Nirmala was merely a benamidar in respect of the properties settled by the deed.
Shah, J. This group of appeals arises out of suits Nos.
67 of 1955 he claimed that it be declared that his wife Nirmala, is a benamidar for him and that the deed of dedication dated September 15, 1944 did number amount to an absolute dedication of the properties in suit to the deities Sri Satyanarayan Jiu Sri Lakshminarayan Jiu and that the plaintiff is the sole Shebait of the two deities.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, A.K. Sen, and D.N. Mukherji, for the appellants in all the appeals .
In Suits Nos.
An issue was raised about the nature of the endowment and the Trial Court declared that the endowment was partial and the beneficial interest remained vested in Balai.
Nirmala appealed and companytended that there was an absolute dedication in favour of the deity, but she did number represent the deities and companyld number raise that claim, unless she got herself formally appointed guardian of the deity by order of the Court.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and S.C. Majumdar, for respondent No.
The deed gives detailed directions with regard to succession to the Shebaitship.
79 80 of 1954 holding that the plaintiff was the owner of the disputed properties and the deed of endowment Ext.
The Judgment of SUBBA RAO and SHAH JJ.
was delivered by SHAH, J. BACHAWAT, J. partially dissented.
