A civil court is competent to entertain a suit for the establishment of a scheme for the administration of a private debutter. The deity is not a necessary party to such a suit unless its interest is vitally affected. The court can frame a scheme for the administration of a private debutter to prevent mismanagement or maladministration of the deity's estate.

JUDGMENT

B.K. Mukherjea, J. - These two appeals are by different parties against the decision in the same suit which was commenced by the plaintiff for settling a scheme in relation to a private debutter. The facts which are material for our present purpose may be briefly stated as follows; Three brothers, namely, Nabin Krishna, Raj Krishna and Gopi Krishna installed two deities to wit Radhaballav Jew and Radha Rani Jew in a Thakurbati which they erected close to their residential house. There was an Ekrarnama executed by and between the brothers on 15th April 1852 which recited inter alia that the brothers had contributed a sum of Rupees 1,500 each and certain ornaments and utensils for the Seva of the idols and that with this money certain immovable properties would be purchased, the income of which would be sufficient to meet the expenses of worship. So long as such property was not purchased, the Seva would be carried on with the interest of this money and in case it was found insufficient, the brothers would supplement the income from their own private funds. Under this Ekrarnama, the three brothers were made joint Shebaits with rights of survivorship amongst them and after the death of the last survivor the Shebaiti right, would devolve per stirpes upon the heirs of the three founders. It may be mentioned here that there were two other brothers and all the five had effected a partition amongst them sometime in the year 1846, and since then each one of the brothers had separate funds of his own. The plaintiff in the suit is one Ganendra Krishna Ghose who is a great-grand-son of Nabin Krishna and what he alleges in substance is that after the death of the original Shebaits, there was an arrangement come to by the heirs according to which a sum of Rs. 821 was to be spent yearly for the Pujah and ceremonies of the deities. Apurba Krishna, a son of Nabin Krishna became the managing Shebait with the consent of all the co-sharers and after him Bata Krishna, another son of Nabin became the manager. This Bata Krishna, is alleged to have wasted and misappropriated a good amount of debutter money in collusion with one Namik Chandra, a Gomasta of the debutter estate. He died in 1910 and since then a quarrel is going on amongst the Shebaits regarding the mode of management and performance of the Seva of the idols. Hence the plaintiff brought this suit for having a proper scheme settled by the Court as to how the debutter property should be managed and the Seva performed. Originally, there were six defendants who are all the descendants of three sons of Nabin, namely, Siva Krishna, Pran Krishna and Bata Krishna. Later on, the heirs of Gosain Das, another son of Nabin, and the descendants of Raj Krishna and Gopi Krishna were added as parties defendants and some of them subsequently got themselves transferred to the category of plaintiffs and figure as added plaintiffs in the suit. Defendants 1 to 5 are in reality the contesting defendants and they raised certain points some of which have come up for decision in this appeal. The other defendants practically supported the plaintiffs in their written statements.

2. Defendants 1 to 5 contended inter alia that the debutter being a private debutter, no scheme could be settled by the civil Court and the deity would be a necessary party to such a proceeding. It was further alleged that with regard to properties 1, 2 and 3 of the debutter estate the management should be confined to Nabin's branch alone according to the provision of the Ekrarnama inasmuch as they were subsequent gifts made by Nabin out of his own self, acquisition. Among Nabin's descendants, it is said, that the heirs of Gosain Das and Radhanath, two of the five sons of Nabin should be excluded and amongst the heirs of the other three sons, again defendants 1 to 5 want to exclude the plaintiff and defendant 6 all of whom according to them had forfeited their Shebaiti right by reason of their conduct. The trial Court overruled all