HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
G. N. Das
NAGENDRA NATH MITRA - Appellant
Versus
BALDEOJI THAKUR - Respondent
A. F. A. D. 1095 Of 1948
Decided On : DECEMBER 2, 1948
Deity - Property Dispute - [No specific act section referenced] - The court found that the disputed premises belonged to the deity Baldeoji and that the defendant was a licensee, and the license had been properly determined. The court also discussed the delegation of power by the Shebait and the authority to file the suit on behalf of the deity.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the possession of a property claimed by the plaintiff deity, represented by the Shebait, against the defendant who claimed to be a licensee of the property. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the lower appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputed premises belonged to the deity Baldeoji and that the defendant was a licensee, and the license had been properly determined. The court also ruled that the suit was authorized by the Shebait and was the deity's suit.
Issues: The issues included the existence of the deity, the validity of the license, the authority to file the suit on behalf of the deity, and the proper signing and verification of the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disputed premises belonged to the deity and that the defendant was a licensee. It also discussed the delegation of power by the Shebait and ruled that the suit was authorized by the Shebait and was the deity's suit.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiff was upheld.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is on behalf of the deft. and arises out of a suit for ejectment of the deft. from the disputed property namely premises No. 7, Cornfield Road, Ballygunge, on a declaration that the deft, is a licensee in respect thereof and that the license has been terminated by notice. There is a prayer for a permanent injunction restraining the deft, from entering the premises.
( 2 ) THE plff. in the suit was described as Sree Sree Baldeoji Thakur, represented by his next friend Shebait Sreemat Goswami Sree Sree-Krishna Raiji Maharaj. The plff's. allegation was that the deity Baldeoji Thakur was located in premises No. 20, Banstala Street along with other deities; that the Shebait of the deity was Krishna Raiji; that the deft, was permitted to occupy the disputed premises and that the licence has been determined by a notice to quit.
( 3 ) THE defence of the deft, was that there is no deity by the name of Baldeoji; that the disputed. premises is held by the deft, as shebait of the deity Shiva Thakur; that the plaint was not properly signed and verfied and that the suit was not maintainable. On these pleadings, several issues were raised which are to be found on p. 3 of the paper book.
( 4 ) THE trial Courts held that the plff. deity-was in existence and that Sree Krishna Raiji was the then Shebait of the deity Baldeoji; that the deft. was a licensee and that the licence has been validly determined but that the plaint was not a proper plaint. In the result, the suit was dismissed. Against the decision of the trial Court, an appeal was taken by the plff. to the lower appellate Court. A cross-objection was filed on behalf of the deft. In the lower appellate Court, the plff. filed an application for permission to have the plaint signed and verified by the Shebait Sree Krishna Raiji Maharaj. The lower appellate Court,, found that the deity was properly represented by Krishna Raiji Maharaj; that the plaint was properly signed and verified; that the deft, had no title to the disputed property which belonged to the deity Baldeoji and that the deft, was a licensee, the licence having been properly determined. On these findings, the lower appellate Court decreed the suit and made the requisite declarations. Against the decision of the lower appellate Court, the deft, lias preferred this appeal.
( 5 ) MR. Surajit Chandra Lahiri, appearing on behalf of the deft. has raised two contentions.
( 6 ) IN the first place; he contends that the premises No. 20, Banstala Street does not belong to the deity and that the deity is not entitled to bring the suit. Reliance is placed on certain resumption proceedings which go to show that premises No. 20, Banstala Street was released in favour of a different diety Gopal Jiu. This question, however, is not strictly material in this case. The plaint recites that the deity Baldeoji along with other deities is located in the premises No. 20, Banstala Street. The title to that property is not in question. The title to the disputed premises has been concurrently found by the Courts below to be in the deity Baldeoji, the plff. in the suit. The finding on this point is based on the admissions made by the deft. in a previous suit and on other evidence to which it is not necessary to refer. The first contention therefore must be overruled.
( 7 ) THE second contention put forward is that the present suit is not the deity's suit. It is submitted that the Shebait Krishna Raiji Maharaj delegated his functions to Sankarsan Das under a power of attorney and Sankarsan Das in his turn delegated his powers to one Goaldas that it is the latter who has signed the plaint and is responsible for the suit. This argument, in my opinion, is based on a misconception of the plaint. In the plaint it is specifically recited that the plff. is the deity Baldeoji represented by the Shebait Krishna Raiji Maharaj. The body of the plaint recites that the disputed premises belongs to the deity Baldeoji and that the p
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.