Pranabesh Chakraborty v. Arun Kumar Chakraborty — 1989 DIGILAW 39 (CAL)

ORDER A very interesting and crucial question comes up for consideration in this second appeal and which is a substantial question of law. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his right to conduct the sheba puja of the deity, Sri Sri Bura Shiva Thakur. There was also consequential relief prayed for that the principal defendants be restrained from disturbing the plaintiff's possession in the suit property and interfering with his functions in relation to the deity. 3. The learned trial court, who decided the Title Suit No. 25 of 1977 decreed the suit. 4. There was an appeal and the learned First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 5. The facts of the case have now come within a narrow compass, because mostly they have been concluded by the findings of the two courts below. The suit property was described by the plaintiff as Debattar Property. The proforma defendants were described as the shebaits of the deity. It was next averred that the proforma defendants appointed the plaintiff as the Pujari of the deity and allowed him to cultivate the suit land and from its income and usufruct to perform the sheba puja of the deity. On that basis the plaintiff claimed that he began to possess from 11.1.77. 6. The proforma defendants fully supported the plaintiff's case. 7. The case of the principal defendants I to 6 was obscure. It was stated that about 50 years ago the owner of the suit property made a gift of the same to Lakshi Kanta Chakraborty for performing the sheba puja of the deity on certain occasions. It was next stated that Lakshi Kanta gave away the property to his wife, the defendant no. 6 by a registered deed of settlement dated 8.9.72. 8. As already noted, the learned courts below rejected the defence case and decreed the suit. These findings of fact are well based on evidence and have become conclusive. The learned trial court relied on the record of right, Ext. B, which described the suit property as Debattar Property of Sri Bura Shiva Thakur and proforma defendant nos. 7 and 8 were described as shebaits. That was sufficient basis for the courts below for the conclusion that the suit property was Debattar Property and that the defendants 7 and 8 were the shebaits. B, which described the suit property as Debattar Property of Sri Bura Shiva Thakur and proforma defendant nos. 7 and 8 were described as shebaits. That was sufficient basis for the courts below for the conclusion that the suit property was Debattar Property and that the defendants 7 and 8 were the shebaits. Then it is a matter of record that the proforma defendants 7 and 8, who are shown as shebaits, supported the plaintiff's case. Therefore, if the proforma defendants 7 and 8 were the shebaits and if they affirmed that they appointed the plaintiff as the Pujari and also allowed him to cultivate the lands, there is no person who can dispute the plaintiff's claim. That exactly are the findings of the two courts below and having disclosed the basis of such findings, it is to be observed that the same have become final. 9. Having proceeded on the concluded facts that the plaintiff was appointed as the Pujari by the shebaits, the only other legal question that falls for consideration is whether the plaintiff can maintain a suit on his own. 10. Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the appellant, has argued that the plaintiff, as Pujari, is no better than a servant and he cannot maintain a suit on his own. In that connection, he has referred to the decision of Ananda Chand Chakraborty reported in 36 CLJ 356 It has been observed that a Pujari or Orchak is not a shebait ; he is appointed by the shebait as the Purohit to conduct the worship; that does not transfer the rights and obligations of the shebait to the Purohit. It is further observed that he is not entitled to be continued as a matter of right in his office as Pujari. 11. Mr. Kabir, the learned Advocate for the respondent no. 1 has, on the other hand, argued that it is not the question of whether the plaintiff has an independent right in respect of the property itself, but is a question whether the plaintiff can maintain a suit in respect of his office as a Pujari. 12. It seems that the ambit of the suit is such that it does not call in question the right of the shebait to represent the deity. The plaintiff has not set up an independent right in the property itself, in derogation to the right of the shebaits. 12. It seems that the ambit of the suit is such that it does not call in question the right of the shebait to represent the deity. The plaintiff has not set up an independent right in the property itself, in derogation to the right of the shebaits. The plaintiff simply seeks to maintain his office as Pujari. If the Pujari's duty is to be considered as an office, then undoubtedly under s. 9 of the CPC, the plaintiff can maintain a suit in respect of the said office. It is not seen why the Pujari cannot be said to hold an office. The explanations to s. 9 of the CPC make it clear that the right to property or to an office, involved in a suit, becomes a suit of a civil nature. It is also mentioned in explanation 1, that it is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious rites or ceremonies. Earlier, there was some conflict of judicial decisions as to whether if any fees are attached to the office should be the guiding test for considering whether it was an office so as to come within the ambit of a suit of a civil nature. But by adding explanation-2, it has been made clear that whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to an explanations or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place that the office would in any case come within the purview of the section. The Supreme Court in the case of Sri Sinha Ramanuja Jeer ( AIR 1961 SC 1720 ) has laid down clearly that the essential condition for the existence of an office is that the holder of the alleged office shall be under a legal obligation to discharge the duties attached to the said office and for the non-observance of which he may be visited with penalties. It has also been settled that a suit to establish one's fight to an office in a temple and to honours and privileges attached to the said office as its remuneration or perquisites, is maintainable in a civil court. It seems that this has settled the point and no other ambiguity remains. It has also been settled that a suit to establish one's fight to an office in a temple and to honours and privileges attached to the said office as its remuneration or perquisites, is maintainable in a civil court. It seems that this has settled the point and no other ambiguity remains. The plaintiff claims that he was appointed Pujari and obligation was imposed upon him to perform the sheba puja of the deities. Further, according to the plaintiff, for the purpose of his duties, he was permitted to enjoy the usufructs of the land as his privileges or remuneration. Such a suit is quite maintainable, as follows from the Supreme Court decision. 13. This is the legal position that the plaintiff can maintain a suit as to his right to an office as Pujari and to the properties as remuneration for the duties cast upon him. On facts, it has been concluded that the plaintiff was appointed Pujari and was allowed to possess the lands as licensee. The plaintiff, even as a licensee, can maintain a suit against any usurper. The decrees of the courts below are quite legal and valid and must be maintained. The appeal is dismissed. I make no order for costs. Appeal dismissed.