Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 869 (CAL)

Narayan Chandra Das v. Shyam Ray Jew Thakur

2010-07-26

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2010
JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J. 1. THIS application is directed against the order no.85 dated November 21, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Dantan, District : Paschim Medinipur in Title Suit No.7 of 1998 thereby rejecting two petitions one under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for exemption of the present plaintiffs from the suit and the other for addition of parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. 2. THE short fact of the case is that the opposite party no.1 instituted the title suit no.7 of 1998 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Dantan praying for declaration of right, title and interest of Sri Sri Shyam Ray Jew Thakur and also for injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit property. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. stating, inter alia, that owing to their attaining old age and suffering from various ailments, they had transferred their right of sebaitship in favour of their sons. So, they wanted to be exempted from proceeding with the suit. At the same time, the petitioners filed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. praying for addition as plaintiffs in the suit instead of existing plaintiffs because they got the sebaitship by dint of a registered deed no.604 dated 17.04.2008. The opposite parties are not contesting the application. 3. HAVING gone through the materials in support of the application and on hearing the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioners, I find that the defendant nos.1 and 2 to 6 of the said title suit are contesting the suit and they filed written objections against the said two petitions denying the contentions of the plaintiffs as well as of the intending plaintiffs. They have contended that the suit property was never been treated as a debuttar property and that the plaintiffs are not the sebaits in respect of the suit property at all. The suit property is nothing but the private property in the possession of the defendants. 4. FROM the materials on record, I find that the plaintiffs of the suit executed a registered deed bearing no.604 dated 17.04.2008 transferring the right of sebaitship in favour of their sons, that is, the intending petitioners. The suit property is nothing but the private property in the possession of the defendants. 4. FROM the materials on record, I find that the plaintiffs of the suit executed a registered deed bearing no.604 dated 17.04.2008 transferring the right of sebaitship in favour of their sons, that is, the intending petitioners. At the time of registration of the said deed, the suit for declaration and injunction was pending and the plaintiffs did not seek any permission from the Court to transfer their so-called right of sebaitship in favour of their sons. Moreover, it is very much disputed whether the suit property belongs to the deity or if the plaintiffs are the sebaits of the said deity. This being the position, I am of the view that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has rightly rejected the two applications after giving reasons in details in the order impugned. 5. THEREFORE, I am of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. So, this application is meritless. It is, therefore, dismissed.