Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B. C. Mitra, S. C. Deb
PANNA BANERJEE - Appellant
Versus
KALI KINKOR GANGULI - Respondent
Suit 192 Of 1959
Decided On : APRIL 11, 1973
The suit property is a public temple and an absolutely debottar property of the deities. The transfer of the half share in the shebaity right of the deities by Sm. Pramila Debi to Upendra Nath Ganguli was for legal necessity. The transfer of the half share of the shebaity right by Sm. Pramila Debi to Upendra Nath Ganguli was binding on the defendants in the suit. Upendra Nath Ganguli carried out the sheba of the "firingi Kali" alone since 1907 until his death. Pramila acted as a shebait in respect of half share under the Will of Upendra Nath. The first respondent was entitled to half share of the shebaity right of the deities and the appellant Nos. 1 (A), 1 (B), 1 (C), 2, 3, 4 and 5 were entitled to the other half to be exercised 15 days in the month by each of the two groups of the parties, as provided in the deed dated January 29, 1907 executed by Sm. Pramila in favour of Upendra Nath.
Fact of the Case:
The suit property is a public temple and an absolutely debottar property of the deities. The transfer of the half share in the shebaity right of the deities by Sm. Pramila Debi to Upendra Nath Ganguli was for legal necessity. The transfer of the half share of the shebaity right by Sm. Pramila Debi to Upendra Nath Ganguli was binding on the defendants in the suit. Upendra Nath Ganguli carried out the sheba of the "firingi Kali" alone since 1907 until his death. Pramila acted as a shebait in respect of half share under the Will of Upendra Nath. The first respondent was entitled to half share of the shebaity right of the deities and the appellant Nos. 1 (A), 1 (B), 1 (C), 2, 3, 4 and 5 were entitled to the other half to be exercised 15 days in the month by each of the two groups of the parties, as provided in the deed dated January 29, 1907 executed by Sm. Pramila in favour of Upendra Nath.
Finding of the Court:
The suit property is a public temple and an absolutely debottar property of the deities. The transfer of the half share in the shebaity right of the deities by Sm. Pramila Debi to Upendra Nath Ganguli was for legal necessity. The transfer of the half share of the shebaity right by Sm. Pramila Debi to Upendra Nath Ganguli was binding on the defendants in the suit. Upendra Nath Ganguli carried out the sheba of the "firingi Kali" alone since 1907 until his death. Pramila acted as a shebait in respect of half share under the Will of Upendra Nath. The first respondent was entitled to half share of the shebaity right of the deities and the appellant Nos. 1 (A), 1 (B), 1 (C), 2, 3, 4 and 5 were entitled to the other half to be exercised 15 days in the month by each of the two groups of the parties, as provided in the deed dated January 29, 1907 executed by Sm. Pramila in favour of Upendra Nath.
Issues: 1. Was the said premises No. 244, Bowbazar Street a secular property of Sashi Bhusan Banerjee? 2. (a) Was the transfer by Sm. Pramila Debi of half right title and interest in said premises for legal necessity? 2. (b) Is such transfer valid in law and binding on the defendants? 3. (a) Was the transfer by Sm Pramila Debi of half of her right of shebaitship of the said "firingi Kali" for legal necessity? 3. (b) Is such transfer valid in law and binding on the defendants'' 4. Was Upendra Nath Ganpuli openly in possession of the said premises No. 244, Bowbazar Street since 1907 until his death? 5. Did Upendra Nath Ganpuli carry out the sheba of the "firingi Kali" alone since 1907 until his death? 6. Did Sm. Pramila Debi take possession of the said premises and act as shebait under the said Wills? 7. Has the plaintiff become the sole owner of the said premises? 8. Has the plaintiff become the sole shebait of "firingi Kali"?
Ratio Decidendi: The transfer of the half share in the shebaity right of the deities by Sm. Pramila Debi to Upendra Nath Ganguli was for legal necessity. The transfer of the half share of the shebaity right by Sm. Pramila Debi to Upendra Nath Ganguli was binding on the defendants in the suit. Upendra Nath Ganguli carried out the sheba of the "firingi Kali" alone since 1907 until his death. Pramila acted as a shebait in respect of half share under the Will of Upendra Nath. The first respondent was entitled to half share of the shebaity right of the deities and the appellant Nos. 1 (A), 1 (B), 1 (C), 2, 3, 4 and 5 were entitled to the other half to be exercised 15 days in the month by each of the two groups of the parties, as provided in the deed dated January 29, 1907 executed by Sm. Pramila in favour of Upendra Nath.
Final Decision: The suit is dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated November 29, 1971. The decree was passed in a suit instituted by the first respondent Kali Kinkor Ganguli in this Court for a declaration that he was the sole owner of premises No. 244, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta and was the sole shebait of Firingi Kali and the other deities installed in the premises. There is an alternative prayer in the plaint for a declaration that the first respondent is entitled to an undivided half share in premises No. 244, Bowbazar Street, and to half the pala in the sheba of the Firinhi Kali and the other deities installed there.
( 2 ) IT is not disputed that this temple is the abode of the deity popularly known as Firinsi Kali and several other deities. It is necessary to trace the historical background to the dispute. One Ramkanta Pal constructed a Shiva temple, and installed the deity Shiva, on a piece of land measuring 11 Chittacks and 11 gandas at 244, Bowbazar Street, Calcutta, which stood in the name of his father Beni Madhab Pal in the records of the Calcutta Collectorate. Ramkanta became the shebait of Shiva. Thereafter in or about 1820, Kali Prasad Pal and Gouri Prasad Pal, the two sons of Ramkanta Pal, orally transferred the temple, together with the idol Shiva, and shebaity right of the deity, to one Srimanta Pandit. Srimanta Pandit carried on the sheba of the deity after taking possession of the temple. He constructed a small brick-built one storied room thereon, and installed the idols of Goddesses Kali, Sitala. Manasha and Shaligram Shila and carried on the sheba of the deities at the temple for more than 60 years without interruption.
( 3 ) IN 1880 Srimanta Pandit by a registered deed transferred the said temple together with the deities and the shebaity right of the deities to one Sashibhusan Banerjee for a sum of Rs. 60/ -. Sashibhusan after purchase of the temple with the deities took possession of the temple and performed the sheba of the deities till his death on August 24, 1894. He left behind him two widows Sm. Paripurna Debi and Sm. Pramila Sundari Debi. After the death of Sashibhusan his elder widow, Paripurna Debi carried on the sheba puja of the deities during her lifetime, and on her death on April 10. 1905, one Rakhal Chandra Mukherjee brother of Sm. Puripurna Debi, took possession of the temple premises and ousted Sm. Pramila Debi from the possession of the premises and also from the shebaity of the deities.
( 4 ) ON August 22, 1905, Sm. Pramila filed a suit in this Court (Suit No. 645 of 1905) for a declaration of her right in the temple premises and the sheba puja of the deities against Rakhal Chandra Mukherji. On August 3, 1906, Sm. Pramila along with one Chandra Kumar Banerjee, who was the reversioner, of Sashibhusan, sold premises No. 38/1, Champatala Lane, Calcutta, forming part of the estate of Sashibhusan, to one Upendra Nath Ganguli for legal necessity. On January 29, 1907, Sm. Pramila purported to sell half shares of the temple at 244, Bowbazar Street, together with half shares of her shebaity right of the deities to the same purchaser, namely Upendra Nath Ganguli, for valuable consideration for legal necessity. The legal necessity claimed was the expenses incurred in connection with the litigation relating to the temple premises and the shebaity right, against Rakhal Chandra Mukherjee in Suit No. 645 of 1905.
( 5 ) ON February 12, 1907, a decree was passed in favour of Sm. Pramila in the said Suit No. 645 of 1905 by Chitty, J. , declaring her to be entitled to the said temple premises and to the right of sheba puja of the deities.
( 6 ) IT is claimed by the plaintiff respondent that since 1907 Upendra Nath who came into the possession of the premises carried on the sheba puja of the deities till his death in 1925. It appears that between 1908 and 1918 certain mutation proceedings took place under the Land Registration Act, 1876, in which the name of Upendra Nath was incorporate
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
