Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA
Kalyan Das @ Kalyan Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The present two writ petitions assail the self-same judgment of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, both filed by one Kalyan Das, alias Kalyan Kumar Das, one in the name of the deity Sri Sri Dodhimohan Jew, claiming himself to be the president of a committee which is allegedly looking after the deity in the capacity of sebait, and the other in his individual capacity.
2. The matter arises out of two independent original applications, one filed by the present writ petitioner and the other by the private respondents.
3. The present writ petitioner, in its original application, sought for a direction on the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to consider the representation of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner’s name ought to be recorded as Raiyat in respect of the disputed plots.
4. On the other hand, the other original application was filed by the private respondents, seeking for a declaration that the subject plots had not vested in the State, for declaration that the recording of their names as Raiyats in respect of the subject plots was correct, and for relief in the nature of injunction to protect their possessio
A suit for declaration of title involving properties owned by deities is not maintainable without necessary parties, specifically the deities and any related institutions, according to the Orissa Hin....
A Marfatdar cannot alienate properties of deities without statutory permission; absence of necessary parties renders the suit non-maintainable.
Properties owned by deities cannot be alienated by the Marfatdar without permission under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, rendering related transfers void and necessitating inclusion of dei....
Point of Law : In H.P. Big Landed Estate Act, 1953, Section 11 (2) carved out an exception in favour of a minor provided minor had no other means of livelihood.
The suit for title over property belonging to deities is non-maintainable if necessary parties are not joined, and alienation of such property requires statutory permission.
A deity is a juristic person and can sue as an indigent person under Order 33, Rule 1, CPC. However, a suit instituted by the next friend without obtaining the leave of the court to institute the act....
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over disputes involving religious properties when necessary parties, specifically deities, are absent; such matters should be resolved under the relevant endowment act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
