Kachakanti Seva Samtty v. Kachakanti Devi — 1997 DIGILAW 56 (GAU)

This second appeal has been filed by the defendants. 2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that-plaintiff No. 1 Shri Kachakanti Devi, the deity was established by the then King of Cachar Maharaja Krishna Chandra Dhaj Narayan and about 200 years ago. He appointed one Sonaram Sarma as Shebait. Sonaram Sarma was conferred title of Deshmukhya in recognition to his learning. Plaintiff Nos.2 to 25 and proforma defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the direct descendants of said Sonaram Sarma. After the establishment of the deity the right of shebaitship was permanently vested or Sonaram Sarma which according to the plaintiff was a private endowment in their favour. It was further alleged that the subsequent British ruler also recognised the aforesaid right of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' forefathers were thus in full control of the deity as their private institution offering puja and other services to her. 2A. The local public on recent days formed an assembly named and styled as 'Shri Shh Kachakanti Mandir Construction Committee' for the sole purpose of construction of that temple and making other developmental works around the year 1970. But ultimately, more over enthusiastic persons of the locality formed a society named and styled as Shri Shri Kachakanti Seva Samity (defendant No. 1) with ulterior motive of gaining full control of the deity and with malafide intention to deprive the plaintiffs 2 to 25 from their right of shebaitship. The society got registered and now is interferring with the management of and service to the deity which is a private religious institution belonging to the plaintiffs alone. It is alleged that defendants have absolutely no right to interefere with the management of the institution aforesaid. That the formation of the society and its activity caused apprehension and threat to the enjoyment of the right of shebaitship of the plaintiffs 2 to 25 giving rise to cause of action for the suit by middle part of 1979. 3. Plaintiffs prayed for declaration of their right of shebaitship etc, for a negative declaration that the principal defendants have no right to interfere with the management of the plaintiff No. 1 and for injunction etc. 4. The schedules of the plaint contains description of the movable and immovable property held by plaintiff No. 1. 5. 3. Plaintiffs prayed for declaration of their right of shebaitship etc, for a negative declaration that the principal defendants have no right to interfere with the management of the plaintiff No. 1 and for injunction etc. 4. The schedules of the plaint contains description of the movable and immovable property held by plaintiff No. 1. 5. The defendants have raised the usual pleas regarding want of cause of action, non maintainability, bar of law of limitation, Specific Relief Act etc, defect of parties, waiver, estoppel and so on. Statement of the plaint were denied and the defence version of the case was given vide para 27 of the WS. According to the defendants Maharaja Krishna Chandra died in the year 1813 AD and thereafter his brother Govinda Chandra ruled Cachartill 1818 AD when a Manipuri King, namely, Gambhir Singh came to rule Cachar till 1824 AD. Thus, the documents relied upon the plaintiffs creating the right of shebaitship in their favour in 1213 BS cannot be genuine document as the date on it corresponds to 1824 AD when Maharaja Krishna Chandra was already dead. 6. They alleged further that seat of plaintiff No. 1 was little far away from the residence of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 25. That local public used to manage and offer service to 'Shri Shri Kachakanti DevT with the help of local Brahmins and it was a public institution. That Shri Shri Kachakanti Ban Development Committee formed by the local public constructed the boundary walls and the 'Kirtonghar' by collecting subscription from the public. That in several meetings held by the defendant society some members of the plaintiffs were present and they had the acquiescence and consent with the activity and functioning of the defendants' society. That the society has also been duly registered for the purpose of giving service to the idol Shri Shri Kachakanti Devi and on and from the date of its formation it is in full management and control of plaintiff No. 1. That no private or Govt document ever recorded the right of shebaitship as claimed by the plaintiffs and all properties belonging to the deity have been vested in the plaintiff No. 1 herself. That the plaintiffs 2 to 25 with the sole intention of disturbing the smooth functioning of the institution have instituted this suit for wrongful gain and, therefore, cannot succeed. 7. That the plaintiffs 2 to 25 with the sole intention of disturbing the smooth functioning of the institution have instituted this suit for wrongful gain and, therefore, cannot succeed. 7. As many as 12 issues were framed by the trial Court. The trial Court first took up for discussion of issue Nos.8 and 9. These two issues relate to the appointment of Sonaram Sarma as Shebait by Kachari Kings and whether plaintiff Nos.2 to 25 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are Shebaits. Issues No.9 is with regard to the creation of grant by the Kachari Kings in favour of the forefathers of the plaintiffs. The trial Court came to the findings that Sonaram Sarma was never appointed as Shebait of the deity by the Kachari Kings. The forefather of plaintiff Nos.2 to 25 and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are not present Shebaits as such it was held that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are not the Shebaits of the deity. The learned Munsiff considered the issues, and the decision having been arrived and also the suit was dismissed. It may be stated herein that the defendants did not examine any witness. There was an appeal being Title Appeal No.90 of 1993 before the learned Assistant District Judge, Cachar at Silchar. The learned Judge decided issue No. 1, that is, the cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs. Thereafter the learned Judge took up for consideration issue Nos.8,9 and 12. Issue No. 12 is whether the defendants have any right to form the Shebait Samity in order to take control over the deity and administer of property. The learned Judge came to the finding that the plaintiffs are doing the job of shebaitship. The claim was made by the defendant that the puja of the deity is performed by the local public by appointing indigeneous Brahmins as Pujari. But the learned Judge found that there is no evidence in support of this plea. The learned Judge came to the finding that the plaintiffs are doing the job of shebaitship. The claim was made by the defendant that the puja of the deity is performed by the local public by appointing indigeneous Brahmins as Pujari. But the learned Judge found that there is no evidence in support of this plea. The learned Judge came to the categorical finding as follows : 'Therefore, I find that the present plaintiffs were in possession of the properties of the plaintiff No. 1 as her caretaker and were offering her services till the alleged date of threatened dispossession due to the formation of the committee and subsequent activities of defendant No.1 in and around the year of 1979." It was further found by the learned Judge that the g plaintiffs were in enjoyment of their right of shebaitship for a considerable period of time undisturbed and to the exclusion of all other claimants and the learned Judge came to the finding that the plaintiffs are defacto shebait. The position of a defacto shebait as enumerated in Hindu Law is that a defacto Shebait is not a trespasser. He can maintain an action for recovery of possession of debottor property, though legal title may be lacking, he has right to manage the property of f the deity. A Hindu Idol is always deemed to be a minor in-the eye of law. The possession and management of such property of the idol shall always vest in the Shebait. The Shebait must necessarily be empowered to do whatever may be required for the service of the idol and for the benefit and preservation of its property. If this was not so, the estate of the idol would be disturbed or wasted and its worship would be discontinued for want of necessary fund to preserve and maintain them. (See 1875 (2) IA145 (PC) (Prasanna Kumari vs. Gopal Chand). An idol as per Hindu Law no doubt is a juridical person, but for the management of the property there must be somebody and he is the Shebait. A defacto shebait cannot be thrown out by a third party by forming a society to manage. It must be done by following the due process of law. As the lower appellate Court found that the plaintiffs are the defacto Shebait, the defendant No. 1 cannot throw away the plaintiffs from exercising their rights. 8. A defacto shebait cannot be thrown out by a third party by forming a society to manage. It must be done by following the due process of law. As the lower appellate Court found that the plaintiffs are the defacto Shebait, the defendant No. 1 cannot throw away the plaintiffs from exercising their rights. 8. Regarding the question of non joinder the appellate Court found that the suit is not bad for non-joinder. Once it is found that the plaintiffs are the Shebaits, the decree passed by the lower appellate Court requires no interference. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. 9. I have heard Shri B. Acharyya, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri NM Lahiri, learned Advocate for the respondents. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.