( 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 Thakuran