Skip to content


Pramatha Nath Mukherjee and ors. Vs. Anukul Chandra Banerjee and Jogesh Chandra Mukherjee and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in85Ind.Cas.875
AppellantPramatha Nath Mukherjee and ors.;amar Chandra Bannerjee
RespondentAnukul Chandra Banerjee and Jogesh Chandra Mukherjee and ors.;pramatha Nath Mukherjee and ors.
Excerpt:
hindu law - endowment--will, construction of--shebaitship, devolution of--gift to unborn persons, validity of--devolution of shebaitship, variation in--directions as to management, whether cease to be operative. - .....to the schedule. the plaintiff and the remaining defendants shall bear their own respective costs. the costs incurred by the defendant no. 1, rs. 10 and those incurred by the defendants nos. 2 and 3, rs. 2-8-0 and the one set of vakil's fees payable by the defendants nos. 1, 2 and 3 in proportion to the claim amounting to rs. 899-14-0 and interest thereon, i.e., on the entire amount aforesaid from this day to the date of realization, shall be paid by the plaintiff at the rate of 8-annas per cent, per month.24. this is the decree which her majesty in council adopted. it is over forty years old and no one has ever suggested before that it was not justified by the judgment of the judicial committee and it certainly cannot be challenged before us.25. the first point needs little.....
Judgment:
ORDER

ED

That the plaintiff's claim to get the estate of her deceased father Ram Kamal Mukherjee by right of inheritance be dismissed, as well as her claim, to be the sole preferential shebait of Gopal Jin: Thakur. It is hereby further ordered, that the entire property of Ram Kamal, deceased having absolutely passed to and been vested in the said Thakur, 'plaintiff's claim' to a partition of that estate be also dismissed. It is further declared' that the heirs and descendants of the five brothers, namely, Ram Kamal Mukherjee and of his four brothers, Ram Kumar Mookerjee, Madhu Sudhan Mukherjee, Chunder Mohan Mukherjee and Dina Nath Mukherjee who are by Hindu Law entitled to maintenance from the said five persons shall be entitled to participate in the daily prosad of Gopal Jiu Thakur as well as to reside in the Kidderpore dwelling-house. It is further declared,' that the expenses of the religious portion only of the ceremonies of sradh of the parents of the aforesaid persons, of the marriages of their sons and daughters, and of the Jagnapobita ceremonies, shall be defrayed out of the income of the debutter estate but on no account shall the said income be used in feasting Brahmins, etc., and other secular offices in connection with these ceremonies. It is hereby also declared, that the said dwelling-house, along with the other properties of the testator, shall be under the control and management of the shebaits for the time being who shall look to the necessary repairs of the buildings as next importance to the daily worship of Gopal Jiu Thakur and distribution of prosad to the members of the family. The shebait for the time being shall strictly carry out the other provisions of the Will concerning Durga Puja, the celebration of the dole jatra ras hindola and nandotsub. If sufficient funds should not be forth-coming from the estate for their due celebration then the religious portion of the ceremonies, viz. the pujas, etc., shall alone be performed. The defendant No. 8 Damayanti Debi, who has the preferential right to be shebait, having declined to accept the duties of shebait, the defendant No. 1 Asutosh Mookerji, as the next senior member of the family, shall conduct all the duties in terms of the Will. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 one set of costs according to the schedule. The plaintiff and the remaining defendants shall bear their own respective costs. The costs incurred by the defendant No. 1, Rs. 10 and those incurred by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3, Rs. 2-8-0 and the one set of Vakil's fees payable by the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in proportion to the claim amounting to Rs. 899-14-0 and interest thereon, i.e., on the entire amount aforesaid from this day to the date of realization, shall be paid by the plaintiff at the rate of 8-annas per cent, per month.

24. This is the decree which Her Majesty in Council adopted. It is over forty years old and no one has ever suggested before that it was not justified by the judgment of the Judicial Committee and it certainly cannot be challenged before us.

25. The first point needs little argument. The whole of then existing beneficiaries were before the Court in 1863 and in 1880 (in the latter year including the present appellant) and the appellant cannot under any principles urge that he is not bound by the decree of the Privy Council of 1888. But apart from any thing else we have only to add that in considering the appeal and cross-appeal we have come to a decision that the property does not belong either to the plaintiff or the appellant. It belongs to the idol and this appellant is only a she-bait, not an owner--a trustee for the idol bound to carry out the trust which we hold the testator had full power to make.

26. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. One set divided between the three sets of respondents.


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