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

1948 Supreme(Cal) 189

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
G.N. Das, J.
Nagendra Nath Mitra - Appellant
Versus
Sree Sree Baldeoji Thakur - Respondent
A.F.A.D. No. 1095 of 1948
Decided On : 02-12-1948

Advocates appeared:
S.C. Lahiri and Anukul Chandra Dutta, for the Appellant; Sitaram Banerji, Amulya Charan Dutta, Kamjit Mukherjee and Khagendra Nath Ganguli, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of a Shebait to delegate powers and the requirement for a suit to be properly authorized by the Shebait.

Headnote:

Deity - Property Dispute - [Section 3, Section 8 of the Power of Attorney Act, Section 8 of the Civil Procedure Code] - The court discussed the authority of a Shebait to delegate powers, the limitations on such delegation, and the requirement for a suit to be properly authorized by the Shebait. The court ruled that the suit was properly authorized by the Shebait and the delegation of ministerial acts does not render the plaint improper.

Fact of the Case:

The suit involved a dispute over a property occupied by the defendant, who claimed to be a shebait of the deity Shiva Thakur, while the plaintiff claimed that the property belonged to the deity Baldeoji Thakur and the defendant was a licensee whose license had been terminated.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the deity Baldeoji Thakur was in existence and the defendant was a licensee whose license had been validly determined. The court also ruled that the suit was properly authorized by the Shebait and the plaint was properly signed and verified.

Issues: The issues included the existence of the deity Baldeoji Thakur, the validity of the defendant's license, and the authorization of the suit by the Shebait.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was properly authorized by the Shebait and the delegation of ministerial acts does not render the plaint improper.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the suit decreed in favor of the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

G.N. Das, J. - This appeal is on behalf of the deft. & 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 & 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 SreeKrishna 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 & verified & 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 & that Sree Krishna Raiji was the then Shebait of the deity Baldeoji; that the deft. was a licensee & 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 & 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 & verified; that the deft, had no title to the disputed property which belonged to the deity Baldeoji & that the deft, was a licensee, the licence having been properly determined. On these findings, the lower appellate Court decreed the suit & 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 & 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 & 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 & Sankarsan Das in his turn delegated his powers to one Goaldas that it is the latter who has signed the plaint & 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 & that the present Shebait is Krishna Raiji Maharaj. The only part whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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