Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1936)38BOMLR1250
Thankerton, J.1. This appeal raises a question as to the validity of the provisions for the shebaitship of certain Hindu idols made by the will of Lukey Narain Dhur, who was a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law, and who died on March 26, 1927. The following genealogical table will show the relationship of the parties :- Luckey Narain Dhur - Kadammoni Dasi|--------------------------------------------------| | |Kartik Ganesh (appellant) Ram | | |Netye Madan ||--------------------------------------------------------| | | |Lal Behary Bon Behary Rash Behary Banku Behary2. The testator was survived by his widow and by his three sons.3. The material clauses of the will, which was made and published on November 18, 1923, and under which his sons Kartick and Ram were appointed executors, are as follows :-9. Subject to the payments aforesaid I give the rest and residue of my estate unto my executors and trustees upon trust to pay the balance of the income of my said estate to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom654; (1932)34BOMLR1332
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship set out the facts of the case and then proceeded:] In First Appeal No. 339 two points are urged, first, that Chhatrasangji by his adoption to the Bhamaria estate did not lose his interest in the Ahima estate, and, secondly, that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming possession of the property on the ground that on the representation of the defendant, he did not make an adoption to himself before he was adopted in the Bhamaria estate.2. In First Appeal No. 338 by defendants Nos. 2 and 3, it is contended that the adopted son must be considered never to have been born in his natural family, that is, he is to be regarded as born in his adoptive family, and therefore, if it be held that defendant No. 1 by his adoption forfeited all his rights of inheritance in the natural family, defendant No. 2, the mother of defendant No. 1, had a right to adopt a eon to her husband on the ground that defendant No. 1 must be considered not to have been born in the natural fam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1953All289
P.L. Bhargava, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by Sri Jagannathji, installed in a temple situate in Jagannathji ki gali in old Generalganj in the city of Kanpur, and Raghunath Das (the plaintiffs-respondents) against Sri Kishen (the defendant-appellant) to obtain the following reliefs : (1) by enforcement of the right of manage, ment which vesta in Raghunath Das (plaintiff 2), Sri Kishen (defendant) be removed from the management of property specified in the plaint, which has been made 'waqf' of, and Raghunath Das be awarded possession over the said property as its 'mutwalli' and manager; and (2) an order may be made requiring the defendant to render accounts of the income from the 'waqf' property upto the date of possession by Raghunath Das and a decree for the amount already realised, be passed in favour of Raghunath Das as against the defendant. 2. The temple was admittedly constructed by one Brij Lal, whose relationship with the contending parties will appear from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Lort-Williams, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Panckridge, J., upon an originating summons concerning the validity of certain dispositions in the will of Luckey Narain Dhur dated 18th November 1923. The testator died on 26th March 1927, leaving three sons, Ram Chunder, Kartick and Ganesh. Kara died on 17th October 1928, and Kartick on 2nd May 1927.2. Ram left four sons, Lal Behary, Bon Behary, Rash Behary and Banku Behary, and Kartick left one son Netye. All these are alive, and Ganesh has one son, Madan. On 25th April 1929 letters of administration de bonis non Were granted to the Administrator-General, Bengal, who wishes to know who are the persons now entitled to act as Shebaits of a religious endowment created by Clauses 9 and 10 of the will. Clause 11 provides as follows:I appoint my sons Kartick Chunder Dhur and Ram Chunder Dhur to be the Shebaits of the Thacoors and I direct that upon the death, retirement or refusal to act of any of them or any of the future Shebaits ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1931)33BOMLR580
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff under Section 36 of the Watan Act for a declaration that ha is the heir to the patilki watan of Mul-Savalgi on the death of the last incumbent Sahebgouda in 1921.2. One Shivgouda, the original owner of the watan, died leaving his son Sahebgouda. Sahebgouda died leaving seven sons, three by his first wife Tarava including Rayangouda, the father of the plaintiff, and four sons by his second wife Umava including Shivagouda in whose name the patilki watan was entered, and defendant No. 1 Basangouda. After the death of Shivgouda the watan was registered in the name of Sahebgouda who died in the year 1921.3. The defendants contended that the plaintiff was not the heir and that his father Rayangouda was not the second son of Sahebgouda by seniority, that there was a partition in the year 1882 by which the sons of Tarava became separate, and the sons of Umava lived joint, and that on the death of Sahebgouda, defendant No. 1, who was the eld...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1952Cal705
Das, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application under chap. XIII of the Rules of this Court (Original Side).2. The applicant was Gopinath Dey describing himself as one of the trustees and shebaits under the Trust created by Srimati Chuni Moni Dasi.3. The trust was created by a deed dated 18-9-1901. By the deed the said Chuni Moni Dasi conveyed certain properties to her three sons, Gour Mohan Dey, Satcowrie Dey and Tincowrie Dey as trustees. By the deed of Trust, the settlor Sreemati Chuni Moni Dasi after reciting that she had built a temple for Thacoorbatty and established and located therein deities Sree Sree Juggernath Jiu and Sree Sree Radha Gobind Jiu as her own separate family deities, conveyed and transferred unto the said Gour Mohan Dey, Satcowrie Dey and Tincowrie Dey, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns; certain properties which she described as her stridhone property, to have and to hold the same'upon the following trusts namely upon trust for the said Thaco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1934Cal629,152Ind.Cas.710
Panckridge, J.1. This originating summons is concerned with the legality of certain dispositions in the will, dated 18th November 1923, of Lakshminarayan Dhar, who died on 26th March 1927. The testator left three sons, Ramchandra, Kartik, and Ganesh. Ramchandra and Kartik were appointed executors by the will. Kartik died before probate was obtained, and probate was granted on 13th March 1928, to the surviving executor Ramchandra, Ramchandra died on 17th October 1928, and on 25th April 1929, letters of administration deonis non were granted to the Administrator-General of Bengal. By Clauses 9 and 10 of the will, a religious endowment was created, and by 01. 11 of the will the following provisions were made for the devolution of the shebaitship:I appoint my sons Kartikachandra Dhar and Ramchandra Dhar to be the shebaits of the said Thakurs and I direct that, upon the death, retirement or refusal to act of any of them or any of the future shebaits, the then next eldest male lineal descend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1977Cal473
ORDERPadma Khastgir, J. 1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs (1) Sri Sri Iswar Dashabhuja Thakurani (2) Sri Sri Iswar Govinda Jew Thakur and (3) Rash Behari Roy against the defendants (1) Sm. Kanchanbala Dutta (2) Gosta Behari Roy and (3) Brojo Behari Roy inter alia for appointment of the plaintiff No. 3 Rash Behari Roy as the next friend of the plaintiff deities, declaration that the properties mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the plaint are debutter properties belonging absolutely to the plaintiff deities, framing of a scheme, injunction, Receiver, accounts, etc. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No. 1 is a daughter and the plaintiff No. 3 and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of one Hari Mohan Roy. This Hari Mohan Roy owned and possessed two immovable properties at Calcutta, being premises No, 16A, Nandan Road and 20, Ahiritola Street and various properties at Mogra in the district of Hooghly. Full particulars of which will appear from Annexure 'A' to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1979Cal168,83CWN125
M.M. Dutt, J.1. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and it arises out of a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction and for accounts.2. The case of the plaintiff was that one Nayan Chand Nandi installed the deity Sree Sree Gopinath Jew Thakur at 5A, 5B, and 5C, Ratan Babu Road, Cossipur, more than a century ago. His son Mathura Mohan dedicated the Ka schedule properties to the deity. The Kha schedule properties were acquired out of the income of Ka schedule properties. By an Arpannama executed by Mathura Mohan in or about Ashar 1229 B.S., he appointed his widow Rashmoni and his brother's widow Jagadiswari as joint shebaits of the deity. The Arpannama is not, however, traceable. After the death of Jagadiswari, the shebaitship of the deity devolved upon Rashmoni who acted as the sole shebait up to about 1859. By a will dated October 21, 1859, Rashmoni appointed her relation Sristidhar as the shebait of the deity. Sristidhar, by a will which was probated, created a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1960Cal235,64CWN646
G.K. Mitter, J. 1. This is a suit for a declaration that the plaintiff has become a shebait of certain deities in the place of the deceased, Tarag Dassi and Kristo Moti Dassi, for construction of the Will of Pulin Behari Dutt dated March 5, 1934 for the purpose of ascertaining succession to the shebait-ship of the deities mentioned in the plaint, for a declaration that the purported consent decree dated August 7, 1936 in Suit No. 1695 of 1935 and the purported order dated August 23, 1941 in Suit No. 14 of 1941 are not binding on the plaintiff, for an injunction restraining the defendant Gora Chand Dutt from preventing the plaintiff from acting as a shebait and for other reliefs. 2. The defendants in this suit are (1) the Official Trustee of West Bengal, (2) Gora Chand Dutt, a nephew of the Testator, Pulin Behari Dutt, (3) Premchand Sen, (4) Dunialal Dhur (5) Kedar-nath Dhur, (6) Gopal Chand Dhur and (7) Kalidas ' Dhur, being daughters sons of the said testator and lastly (8) Sree Sree ...
Tag this Judgment!