CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of P. B. Mukharji, J. dated 22-2-1956, upholding with certain modifications an order made by the learned Master on the 19th of December, 1955, directing execution of what may be called a scheme decree. By the order of the learned Judge, respondent No. 1, Jnanendra Nath Ghose, was directed to be put into joint possession of certain rooms of premises No. 41a Grey Street and also to be put into joint possession of the rest of the premises occupied by tenants in such manner as such property admitted of. The appellant complains of that order, but in order to understand the nature of its many pointed Complaint, it is necessary to state briefly certain facts.

( 2 ) IT appears that there was a debutter constituted of two houses, namely 41a Grey Street, Calcutta, and 40/2a Grey Street, dedicated to Sree Sree Iswar Sridhar Jew, the appellant before us. Sometime before 1948, the members of the settlor's family, or some of them, purported to reconvert the debutter property into a secular one by the consent of all the members of the family and under the distribution of the properties which followed, the two houses were allotted to one of them. The allottee mortgaged the houses to a third party and in execution of a decree, passed in a suit brought on the mortgage, they were sold and purchased by certain persons who may be called the Dutts, On 19-7-1948, a suit was brought by the appellant before us, as represented by its next friend, one Debabrata Ghose, who is the virtual appellant, against respondent No. 1 and other members of the family as also the purchasers at the mortgage sale. The appellant asked for a declaration that the properties belonged to it absolutely and that the transactions had with regard to them by the defendants were utterly void That suit was decreed, the absolute title of the appellant before us in the said properties being found,, but not stopping at making that declaration, Bose, J. , who heard the suit, also directed a scheme to be framed. In pursuance of that direction, a reference was made to the Assistant Referee of this Court for drawing up a scheme.

( 3 ) THE Dutts did not accept that decree and appealed to the appellate Division of this Court. Their appeal failed, but they proceeded on further appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal was also unsuccessful. The judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in Sree Sree Ishwar Sridhar Jew v. Sushila Bala Dasi.

( 4 ) I have omitted to mention that with regard to-one of the properties, namely 40/2 Grey Street, the appellant's suit failed on the ground of limitation, sits success, therefore, was limited only to the other property, namely premises No. 41a Grey Street, which is also the subject-matter of the present appeal.

( 5 ) THE Assistant Referee of this Court framed a scheme in due course and made his report on 7-3-1955. The scheme was a most elaborate one, but for the purpose of the present appeal, I need refer only to three of its clauses. By Clause 6 it was declared that the name of the then shebaits, who are also the present shebaits, were Shri Jnanendra Nath Ghose, that is to say, respondent No. 1 before us, and Shri Debabrata Ghose, that is to say, the next friend of the appellant in the present appeal. By Clauses 7 and 8, which may be taken together, it was provided that the estate "shall be duly and properly administered and managed jointly by the shebaits hereinbefore, mentioned", and further that "the management of the debutter estate shall devolve upon the shebaits jointly and they shall be jointly responsible for the management of the debutter estate". Clause 13 declared that each of the shebaits would have the right "to reside in the debutter estate viz, at No. 41a, Grey Street" and after setting out how the remaining rooms were to be utilised, the clause proceeded to say that three rooms with the kitchen. and latrine in the second floor would be set apart from the use of the shebaits

Click Here to Read the rest of this document