SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Cal) 90

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. N. MUKHERJEE, SARMA SARKAR
HEMANTA KUMAR MUKHERJEE - Appellant
Versus
PRAFULLA KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE - Respondent
A. F. A. D.  831  Of  1953
Decided On : APRIL 30, 1957

Advocates Appeared:
AMARENDRA KUMAR SANYAL, ASUTOSH DEY, Jitendra Kumar Sen Gupta, PROVASH CHANDRA BASU, PROVAT KUMAR SENGUPTA

Hereditary priests of the Kalighat deities are eligible transferees of palas under the custom recognized by the court.

Headnote:

KALIGHAT PALA TRANSFER - VALIDITY - SALE TO HEREDITARY PRIEST - COMPETENCY OF TRANSFEREE - CUSTOM - EXTENT OF RELATIONSHIP WITH SHEBAITS - SCOPE OF RULE IN MAHAMA YA DEVI V. HARIDAS HALDAR - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

Dispute over the validity of a sale of a pala of the Kalighat temple. Plaintiffs, sons of the seller, challenged the sale as invalid, claiming the defendant was not a competent person to whom the pala could be sold under the rule laid down in Mahamaya Devi v. Haridas Haldar.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the sale was valid and the defendant was a competent transferee. The court interpreted the rule in Mahamaya Devi v. Haridas Haldar to include hereditary priests of the deities as eligible transferees under the custom recognized by the court.

Issues: 1. Whether the sale of the pala was valid. 2. Whether the defendant was a competent transferee under the rule in Mahamaya Devi v. Haridas Haldar.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The rule in Mahamaya Devi v. Haridas Haldar regulates the transfer of Kalighat palas to a limited class of persons, including co-shebaits, potential or prospective shebaits by birth or marriage, and hereditary priests of the deities. 2. The defendant, as a hereditary priest of the deity, was within the competent class of transferees under the custom recognized by the court.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

P. N. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the dispute relates to the validity of a transaction of sale of a pala of the Kalighat temple and the decision depends upon the true meaning and scope of the relative rule, laid down in the case of Mahamaya Devi v. Haridas Haldar. 20 Cal LJ 183: (AIR 1915 Cal 161 (2) ) (A) and its effect on the rights of the parties in the present case in the particular facts hereof. In the two courts below, the parties differed also on the question of the true nature of the disputed transaction, namely, whether it was a mortgage or a sale, but, the courts below having concurrently held that it was a sale, the appellants have not chosen to reiterate their said contention in this Court that it was a mortgage and not a sale The appeal has been argued by their learned Advocate upon the footing that the transaction was a sale and not a mortgage and the only contention that has been pressed before us is that the sale of the pala is not valid, it being outside the sanctioned limits as laid down in the case, cited above.

( 2 ) THE pala in question admittedly belonged to one Narain Das Mukherjee who was a Shebait of the Kalighat deities Sree Sree Kalimata Thakurani. Sree Sree Nakuleswar Mahadev, Sree Sree Shyam Roy and several others. By the disputed transaction, which is dated 17th Baisakh, 1347 B. S. Naraindas sold the pala to the defendant for Rs. 700/ -. The plaintiffs, who are the sons of Naraindas instituted the present suit on April 2, 1951, for a declaration that they -- and not the attendant, -- were the owners of the above pala, notwithstanding the above transaction which, according to the plaintiffs, was a mortgage and not a sale, and, in any event, was fraudulent and collusive and, even if it was a sale, not so vitiated, it was invalid in law and did not pass any title to the defendant as the latter was not a competent person to whom the pala could be sold in law. The defence asserted that the disputed transaction was a sale, not vitiated by any defect whatsoever, and that it was perfectly valid in law and fully effective to pass title to the defendant.

( 3 ) IN the plaint, the competency of the defendant was challenged on the ground that he was not a shebait of the Kalighat deities and belonged to the same gotra as the said deities' shebaits which made it impossible for him to marry a daughter of the said shebaits and as such he was outside the group of persons to whom a pala of the Kalighat temple could be validly transferred in law. This was denied in the written statement where the defendant set up validity of the disputed sale in his favour and claimed title under it.

( 4 ) IN the courts below, the parties appear to have fought mainly upon the true limits of the rule, laid down in the case of Mahamaya Devi v. Haridas Haldar, (A), cited above regulating transfer of Kalighat palas. There was no dispute that such palas were transferable only to a limited class of persons, as laid down in that case. What that class is the point to be decided. There can be no question that it includes co-shebaits and also potential or prospective shebaits by birth or marriage, this relationship, however, being, In our opinion, existing relationship. We do not think also that shebaits, relationship to whom or to whose family by birth or marriage would entitle a person to be a potential or prospective shebait within the above class, would include only the hereditary shebaits Haldars who are Chatterjees or of Kashyap Gotra and not the shebaits in their daughters' lines who may be Banerjees, Mukherjees etc. Although greater stress is laid in the Judgment on relationship with the hereditary shebaits, reading it as a whole, it seems clear that relationship with other shebaits is also sufficient to bring one within the above class. Co-shebaits, of course, would include those other shebaits and the trend of discussion in the case cited would not justify their exclusion when the question of eligible relationship falls to




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top