Court determined the need for clarity over representation rights of a deity amidst conflicting claims, ordering the transfer of related suits to ensure efficient adjudication.

Mr. Ranjan Deb, Sr. Adv., Ms. Indrani Mukherjee, Mr. Aurin Chakraborty, Ms. Ranjana Seal, Advocates for applicant in GA/2/2025 The Court : GA 1 of 2025 is an application by the plaintiffs inter alia for temporary injunction restraining the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 from interfering and/or intermeddling with the estate of the deity Shree Shree Iswar Sitaram Jew.

GA 2 of 2025 is an application by Somesh Mukhopadhyay inter alia for directing the plaintiff to add the petitioner as a co-plaintiff to the suit with a further prayer to allow the learned Advocate for the said applicant to enter appearance in the suit.

GA 3 of 2025 is an application by Swapna Mukherjee, the defendant no.4 inter alia for expunging the allegations of bribery and the allegations and contentions in paragraphs 19 to 41 of the injunction application filed by the plaintiffs being GA 1 of 2025.

GA 4 of 2025 is an application by Arkoprovo Ganguly, the defendant no.1 inter alia for stay of all proceedings in the above suit being EOS 4 of

2025.

GA 2 of 2025 was heard at length on 10th July, 2025 and was kept pending as an order of the Division Bench passed on 9th July, 2025 in FMA 929 of 2023 was placed before this Court. The said appeal arose out of an interlocutory order passed in Title Suit No.910 of 2023 which is now pending before the learned Court, 10th Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore. After recording the reasons the application was adjourned till date to consider the issue of transfer of Title Suit No.910 of 2023 to this Court as the Division Bench by its order dated 9th July, 2025 had directed the learned Trial Judge at Alipore to decide as a preliminary issue as to who is entitled and/or authorised to represent the deity Shree Shree Iswar Sitaram Jew in the said suit. The same issue as to who is entitled to represent the deity, namely, Shree Shree Iswar Sitaram Jew also falls for consideration in the above suit being EOS 4 of 2025 as also in another suit being CS 229 of 2024 in view of the claims, counter-claim, assertion and denial. The estate is the same which has been constituted through Arpannama dated 31st March, 2022. The devolution of shebaitship has to be in accordance with the stipulation made in the said Arpannama. All the three suits, therefore, have a common question as to who shall represent the deity as different persons claiming to be the shebaits either severally and/or jointly with others including worshippers have instituted the three suits i.e. Title Suit No.910 of 2023, CS 229 of 2024 and EOS 4 of 2025. The issue as directed by the Division Bench, therefore, has to be gone into at the threshold as observed by the Division Bench before the other applications can be taken up. The plaintiffs’ application being GA 1 of 2025 filed in EOS 4 of 2025 will obviously lead to a question as to whether the plaintiffs who are seeking the order of injunction are entitled to represent the deity. Similarly the plaintiff in CS 229 of 2024, namely, Swapna Mukherjee is alleged to have been removed from shebaitship. Therefore, the issue whether Swapna Mukherjee can represent the deity and file and maintain the said suit will also fall for consideration.

Decision by the learned Court, 10th Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Alipore regarding the person to be entitled to represent the deity, may be in conflict with any decision taken in EOS 4 of 2025 as also CS 229 of 2024.

Although, the parties except the plaintiffs in EOS 4 of 2025 are agreeable to the transfer of Tile Suit No.910 of 2023 from the Court at Alipore, the said plaintiffs object to the transfer on the following grounds :

1.

i) The suit now pending before Alipore Court relates to cancellation of a document executed by the mother of the present defendant no. 1 and mother-in-law of defendant no. 2 claiming herself to be the sole shebait. Defendant no. 2 in this suit does not under any stretch of investigation qualify as the shebait.

ii) The plaintiffs say that if the suit is transferred to this Cou