Shebaitship rights cannot be transferred in violation of prior legal agreements, and debuttar properties are not subject to partition due to their dedicated nature to deities.

JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present first appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 4-series against the defendant nos. 1 – 9/appellants inter alia for partition of certain Debuttar properties, for declaration of co-shebaitship of the contesting parties, for a declaration that a deed dated July 10, 1996 executed by one Sukumar Chakraborty (since deceased), transferring his shebaitship rights to the defendants/appellants is void and not binding on the plaintiffs, and for other consequential reliefs.

2. The learned trial Judge partially decreed the suit, thereby declaring co-shebaitship of the parties, declaring the deed dated July 10, 1996 void and not binding on the plaintiffs, and granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1-9/appellants from obstructing the plaintiffs’ peaceful and lawful possession of the suit properties and from performing daily sheba puja as joint shebaits of the concerned deities, and permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos. 10, 11 and 13 from mutating the names of the appellants in any manner whatsoever. However, the prayer for partition was refused, since the suit property is a debuttar property.

3. The narrative of the case begins with one Sarat Chandra Chakraborty, who settled his property by way of an Arpannama (Deed of Settlement) dated June 4, 1941, dedicating the same to the family deities Sri Sri Iswari Siddheswari Kalimata Thakurani, Sri Sri Sitalamata, Sri Sri Ratneswar Shiv and Sri Sri Dadhidham Narayan.

4. However, in order to make specific provisions regarding appointment of Shebaits and worship and preservation of the deities, a further Settlement Deed was executed on February 19, 1958. The said deed was challenged in Title Suit No. 184 of 1971, against the decree of which Title Appeal No. 199 of 1976 was preferred, which culminated in Second Appeal No. 628 of 1979. In the said proceeding, it was ultimately decided that the Settlor had the right to execute the Deed of Settlement of the year 1958.

5. In the Deed of 1958, upon the demise of the settlor Sarat Chandra Chakraborty, the first shebait, the shebaitship rights were to devolve on his three sons, namely Kanailal, Sukumar and Rajkumar, who were all living at the time of execution of the deed.

6. Subsequently, on July 10, 1996, Sukumar, one of the sons of Sarat Chandra, the original settlor, executed a Deed for appointment of shebaits, thereby appointing the defendant nos. 1 – 9/appellants, being the heirs of Rajkumar, another son of Sarat Chandra, as shebaits after his demise.

7. This gave rise to the dispute between the parties, which culminated in the present suit.

8. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned Trial Judge was justified in refusing partition of the suit property on the ground that property dedicated to pious uses cannot be divided and any such division is void.

9. Secondly, the appellants argue that ‘Pala’s, or turns of worship, are bequeathable and gift of shebaitship in favour of co-shebaits has been recognized in law if it is for the benefit of the endowment.

10. Hence, it is argued that the