TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1932 (8) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it brought by Prasad was dismissed, whereas the suit brought against him was decreed. 3. It appears that one Nilmani Pal, who was governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law, executed, at Calcutta, a deed of endowment, on or about 25th July 1911, by which he dedicated the house and premises No. 61, Clive Street and the house and premises No. 105,Balaram Do Street, to the sheba of the idol Shree Shree Annapoorna, established by him in the latter house and premises, and for feeding the poor and carrying out other charitable objects. He appointed himself as the shebait and five other persons as assistant shebaits for carrying out the sheba of the deity as also for carrying out the charitable objects. These assistant shebaits are named in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; | Prasadas Pal (claimant.) Jagannath Pal (minor.) Sm. Durgeshnandini Dasee (deceased), died 3rd Dec., 1929. 5. On the death of Durgeshnandini, the assistant shebaits became entitled to select and nominate a person from amongst the descendants of the brothers of Nilmani to act as shebait according to the directions in the deed of endowment. The three plaintiffs, being three out of the four assistant shebaits, selected Jagannath Pal, who is plaintiff 4 in the suit and nominated him to act as shebait. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant Prasaddas Pal, although he was not selected to act as shebait, has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that this suit was really a counterblast to the suit brought by the defendants, i.e., Suit No. 838 of 1930. 6. In both these suits, two issues were raised: (1) whether the word bangsa in the deed of endowment means lineal descendants" or "members of my family" and (2) whether the consent of all the assistant shebaits for the time being was necessary for the election of the shebait. Both these issues were decided by the learned Judge in favour of the plaintiffs in the earlier suit and against the appellant Prasad Pal, and the suits were decided in the manner already indicated. Against the decrees in the two suits the present appeal has been brought. The learned Advocate-General (Sir Nripendranath Sircar) who appears for the appellant Pra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts like grandson or grand-daughter. We have therefore no hesitation in rejecting the contention of the Advocate-General. With regard to the second contention, it is argued that the provision that the whole of the income of the debuttar property shall be wholly spent for the purposes of the debsheba and the feeding of the poor does not make the endowment a public charitable one. It is argued that this provision about feeding of the poor is part and parcel of the debsheba and cannot be regarded as independent charity in which any class of the public was to have a direct and independent interest. The argument is that the feeding of the poor is really incidental to the puja. Mr. Pugh, who appears for the respondent, argues that the trust is pri....