( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant against a judgment and decree of reversal decreeing the suit. The suit was instituted by Smt. Priyamoni Dasi for the deity Iswar Madan Mohan Jew Thakur for possession in her shebaiti right of the suit lands on removal of the defendant from the office of the shebait of the deity. The plaint case in that deity was the family deity of the plaintiff since the time of her ancestor. The properties in suit were gifted over by the owner Satrughana, an ancestor of the plaintiff, to her husband, by a deed of gift dated Agrahayana 25, 1298 B. S. for meeting the expenses of sebapuja of the deity and thereupon he was put in possession of the properties. The plaintiff's husband died leaving the plaintiff as his only heir and legal representative and she came in possession of the properties. Thereafter she had been carrying on the sebapuja of the deity out of the usufructs of the said properties as shebati of the deity. By a deed of gift dated March 9, 1921 (Ext. 4), a co-sharer of the plaintiff made a gift of some other properties to the plaintiff as such shebait for the performance of the sebapuja of the deity out of the income of such properties. By a third deed of gift dated September 24, 1921 (Ext. 5) certain other properties were gifted the plaintiff as shebait of the said deity with directions on her to perform the sebapuja out of the income thereof. The plaintiff since had been regularly carrying on the sebapuja as such shebait out of the income of the said properties. She was a childless woman and in advanced age and was attacked with various ailments. She engaged the defendant for the purpose of carrying on shebapuja property and by a deed of gift dated September 4, 1926 (Ext. A), she transferred the said properties to the defendant as shebait of the said deity. The deed contained certain conditions so that the sebapuja of the deity could be carried on properly by the defendant whom she knew to be pious Brahmin. The conditions of the gift were that the entire income of the properties so gifted would be utilized for the sebapuja and for no other purpose. The deity would not be removed from the house of the plaintiff at any time and if it is so done the deed of gift would be invalid. The defendant and after him has male decendants thereby were made the shebait of the deity and given power to receive and realise rent mutating their names in the landlord's office. The defendant was also required to reside in the bastu land comprised within the land so transferred and was not entitled to live elsewhere. There were also further directions for observing Rus festivals as also other festivals. The plaintiff come to learn that the defendant had been negligent in the performance of the sebapuja. He did not reside in the bastu land of the plaintiff and also caused the structure therefrom to be destroyed by his negligence and had also removed the deity from its original temple. The defendant had been treating the debuttar lands as secular properties and also had been misappropriating the paddy and other crops of the gifted lands. For misappropriating the debuttar lands permanently the defendant got recorded in the settlement proceedings his own personal name in respect of most of the debutter lands. For all these and other reasons, the defendant had proved himself unfit to remain as shebait of the deity and it is necessary to remove him from that office in the interest of the deity. Accordingly the suit was instituted for recovery of possession as shebiat of the lands described in schedule Ka for lands which did not vest in the state, on removal of the defendant from office of shebait upon the finding that he was unfit to be the shebait of the deity. This suit was instituted on November 13, 1964.

( 2 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant who filed a written statement denying all material allegations in the plaint. It was stated that the properties were not debuttar properties and never belonged to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document