The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the word 'bangsa' in the deed of endowment, the determination of the nature of the charitable trust, and the requirement for election of a shebait.

JUDGMENT

C.C. Ghose, Ag. C.J.

1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment which has been prepared by my learned brother and I agree with him in the conclusions summarized in his judgment.

Mitter, J.

2. This is an appeal from the judgments and decrees of my learned brother Lort-Williams, J., and arises in two suits. The appellant Prasaddas Pal was the plaintiff in suit No. 933 of 1930 and defendant in suit No. 838 of 1930. Jagannath Pal and others are plaintiff's in the latter suit. The suit brought by Prasad was dismissed, whereas the suit brought against him was decreed.

3. It appears that one Nilmani Pal, who was governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law, executed, at Calcutta, a deed of endowment, on or about 25th July 1911, by which he dedicated the house and premises No. 61, Clive Street and the house and premises No. 105,Balaram Do Street, to the sheba of the idol Shree Shree Annapoorna, established by him in the latter house and premises, and for feeding the poor and carrying out other charitable objects. He appointed himself as the shebait and five other persons as assistant shebaits for carrying out the sheba of the deity as also for carrying out the charitable objects. These assistant shebaits are named in para. 2 of the plaint in suit No. 838 of 1930. The first three plaintiffs of the suit are three of the five assistant shebaits. It was further provided that, on the death of the said Nilmani Pal, the five assistant shebaits should do the work of the sheba and his wife, Kusumkumari Dasee, will get the shebait's salary and shall reside in the thakur barhi. It was further provided that, on the death of Kushumkumari, his daughter-in-law, Nirmalasundari, would be next shebait and, and on her death, his grandson would be the shebait and on his death, his granddaughter shall be the shebait. Then follows a clause in the deed of endowment which has been the subject of much controversy both before the learned Judge and before us. That clause runs as follows:

In the absence of any such grandson or grand-daughter one of the members of my family who is competent shall be the shebait.

4. The following pedigree will show the state of the family of Nilmani Pal at the time of the suit:

                   Ramchandra Pal       __________________|__________________       |                      |             |Baikanthanath Pal       Jadunath Pal    Nilmani Pal(deceased)(died before    (deceased)     (deceased)  Nilmani Pal)           (died before   wife Kusum kumari       |                Nilmani Pal)   Dasee       |                     |            (died 26th       |                     |            Oct. 1914.)       |                     |              |Mancendranath         Krishnadhone      Narendranath  Pal (deceased)      Pal (deceased)    Pal (deceased)died before Nilmani   died 16th Dec.    wife Nirmala sundari      Pal                 1916.         Dasee       |                     |            (died 24th       |                     |            Oct. 1914.       |                     |              |Prasadas Pal          Jagannath Pal     Sm. Durgeshnandini (claimant.)            (minor.)          Dasee                                          (deceased),                                        died 3rd Dec.,                                            1929.

5. On the death of Durgeshnandini, the assistant shebaits became entitled to select and nominate a person from amongst the descendants of the brothers of Nilmani to act as shebait according to the directions in the deed of endowment. The three plaintiffs, being three out of the four assistant shebaits, selected Jagannath Pal, who is plaintiff 4 in the suit and nominated him to act as shebait. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant Prasaddas Pal, although he was not selected to act as shebait, has been wrongfully asserting that he is the proper person to act as shebait and has taken wrongful possession of one of the properties, viz., 105, Balaram De Street. The plaintif