Skip to content


Ramprasanna Nandi Chowdhuri Vs. Secretary of State for India - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Cal275(1),(1913)ILR40Cal895
AppellantRamprasanna Nandi Chowdhuri
RespondentSecretary of State for India
Cases ReferredKamini Debi v. Promotho Nath Mookerjee
Excerpt:
shebait - alienation, power of--dedicated property, acquisition of--land acquisition act (i of 1894) section 31 clause (2)--compensation-money, with drawal of. - .....shebait is analogous to that of a manager of an infant. he is entitled to possess and manage the dedicated property. he has no power to alienate it in the general character of his rights. it appears to us that the land acquisition judge rightly held that section 31 (2) applied to the case. this was also the view of mookerjee and carnduff jj. in the case of kamini debi v. promotho nath mookerjee (1911) 13 c. l. j. 597 and we follow that decision. it was contended for the appellants that as the shebaits could join in giving the dedicated property a different turn, it would follow that when they have all agreed, they are entitled to withdraw the money. the simple answer is that they have not as yet done so: and it is an admitted fact that the debuttur has remained unaltered in its.....
Judgment:

Ray, J.

1. These are cases under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. There has been an order under Section 31 (2) of the Act for the deposit of the compensation money, and the claimants' applications for payment were rejected. Against these orders there have been these three appeals. The lands acquired belonged to the family idol of the claimants, Sri Sri Raj Rajeswar. This is admitted, and it is also admitted that the claimants are only shebaits of the idol. It is settled law now that the position of the shebait is analogous to that of a manager of an infant. He is entitled to possess and manage the dedicated property. He has no power to alienate it in the general character of his rights. It appears to us that the Land Acquisition Judge rightly held that Section 31 (2) applied to the case. This was also the view of Mookerjee and Carnduff JJ. in the case of Kamini Debi v. Promotho Nath Mookerjee (1911) 13 C. L. J. 597 and we follow that decision. It was contended for the appellants that as the shebaits could join in giving the dedicated property a different turn, it would follow that when they have all agreed, they are entitled to withdraw the money. The simple answer is that they have not as yet done so: and it is an admitted fact that the debuttur has remained unaltered in its character. The question whether they are capable of giving the dedicated property a different turn as regards this particular endowment has not arisen. The appeals are dismissed.

Coxe, J.

2. Concurred.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //