1946 (6) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....would devolve upon his sons, grand, sons, great grandsons and other male descendants. There is a clause in the arpannama which clearly indicates that no female heir could become a shebait till the line of male descendants was extinguished. Peari had two sons by his first wife who predeceased him, namely, Radhika and Brindaban. Radhika is defendant 1 in the suit, while Brindaban is dead, and his three sons and heirs who are all minors figure as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit. After the death of his first wife, Peari married again, and by his second wife he had two sons, namely, Amrita and Nidanta who are the plaintiffs in the suit. 2. It appears that after the death of his first wife, the feelings between Peari and his eldest son Radhika bec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that there were quarrels between him and his father, but the root cause of all these quarrels, it was alleged, was not any improper conduct on the part of defendant 1, but the extreme partiality, of his father to his step-mother, whom his father married at the age of 62 and the children born of her. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the suit decided all the points in favour of the plaintiffs and gave them a decree. It was held by the Subordinate Judge that the second arpannama was a valid document, and Peari was quite within his rights to alter the line of shebaits provided for in the first document inasmuch as the disposition of shebaitship as made by him therein was not valid in law. The Subordinate Judge further held that defend....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the plaintiffs figure as the appellants, and they have raised the point that the second arpannama was a perfectly valid document, and consequently, they were entitled to act as sole shebaits of the Deities to the exclusion of all the defendants. Appeal No. 1215 of 1940. 5. We will take up appeal No. 1215 of 1940 first for, if the plaintiffs' contention is accepted, the defendants will have no right to act as shebaits, and the question of removing defendant 1 would not at all arise. Now, so far as the plaintiffs' appeal is concerned, Mr. Gupta did not dispute the proposition of law which seems to be fairly well established by authorities of this Court, namely, that in the absence of express reservation in the deed of arpannama, i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the instrument of dedication although no such power was reserved by him in the deed? The answer, in our opinion, would be in the negative. A dedication of a property to a deity is irrevocable, and the rules, if any, laid down by the founder at the time of dedication regulating succession to the office of the shebait should be deemed to be irrevocable also unless; the power of revocation is reserved by the grantor. It was observed by Mukherji J. in Narayan v. Bhukanmohini AIR 1934 Cal 244 as follows: The Judicial Committee in Gossamee Sri Greedharjee v. Roman Lallji 16 I.A. 137 has very clearly pointed out that when the founder of an endowment dedicates properties to a deity and appoints a shebait or lays down the order of succession to ....