LexSREE SREE ISHWAR SRIDHAR JEW versus SUSHILA BALA DASI AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... , • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 407 SREE SREE ISHWAR SRIDHAR JEW v. SUSHILA BALA DASI AND OTHERS. [B. K. MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE and BHAGWATI JJ.] Hindu law-Religioits endowments-Dedication of properties -Dedication to idol subject to charge in favour of heirs or bequest to heirs subject to charge in favour of idol-Construction of will- Adverse possession -Possession of shebait, whether can be adverse to idol. The question whether the idol itself is the true beneficiary subject :to a charge in favour of the heirs of the testator, or the heirs are the true beneficiaries subject to a charge for the upkeep, worship and expenses of the idol, has to be determined by a con- spectus of the entire provisions of the deed or will by which the properties are dedicated. . Pande Har Narayan v. S1trja Kunwari (I.L.R. 47 I.A. 143) referred to . A provision giving a right to the sevayats to reside in the premises dedicated to the idol for the purpose of carrying on the daily and periodical worship and festivals does not detract from the absolute character of a dedication to the idol. Gnanendra Nath Das v. Surendra Nath Das (24 C.W.N. 1026) referred to. No shebait can, so long as he continues to be the shebait, ever claim adverse possession against the idol. Surendrakrishna Ray v. Shree Shree Ishwar Bhitbaneshwari Thakurani (I.L.R. 60 Cal. 54) approved. Judgment of the Calcutta High Court affirmed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 201 of 1952. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 5th March, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Harries C.J. and Banerjee J.) in Appeal from Original Decree No. 118 of 1950, arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 15th June, 1950, of the said High Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in Suit No. 2379 of 1948. N. C. Chatterjee (S. N. Mukherjee, with him) for the appellant. . N. N. Bose (A. K. Dutt, with him) for the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 201 of 1952 and petitionerfor special leave . .'it Nov.16 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] 1953 M. G. Seta,lvad, Attorney-General.for India, (B. Sen, S S-I h with him) for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the petition ree ree s war . · Sridhar Jew for special leave. v. 1953. November 16. The Judgment of the Court Su.•hila Bala was delivered by Da.si and Othera, BHAGWATI J.-This is an appeal on a certificate Rhagwati .1. under article 133( l) of the Constitution from a judg- ment and decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the High Court of Calcutta, modifying on appeal ·the judgment and decree passed by Mr. Justice Bose on the original side of that court. One Dwarka Nath Ghose was the owner of consider- able moveable and immoveable properties. On the 10th June, 1891, he made and published his last will and testament whereby he dedicated to his family idol Shree Shree Iswar Sridhar Jew his two immoveable properties, to wit, premises No. 41 and No. 40/1 Grey Street in the city of Calcutta. He appointed his two sons Rajendra and ,Jogendra executors of his will and provided that his second wife Golap Sundari and the two sons Rajendra and Jogendra should perform the 8€Va of the deity and on their death their heirs and successors would be entitled to perform the 8eva. Dwarka Nath died on the 16th March, 1892, leaving him surviving his widow Golap Sundari and his two sons Rajendra and Jogendra. On the 19th July, 1899, Rajendra made and published his last will and testa- ment whereby he confirmed the dedication made by Dwarka Nath with regard to premises Nos. 41 and 40/1 Grey Street and appointed his brother Jogendra the sole executor thereof. He died on the 31st January, 1900, and Jogendra obtained on the 24th April, 1900, probate of his said will. Probate of the will of Dwarka Nath was also obtained by Jogendra on the 31st August, 1909. On the 4th September, 1909, Bhupendra, Jnanendra and Nagendra, then a minor, the three sons of Rajendra filed a suit, being Suit No. 969 of 1909, on the original side of the High Court at Calcutta against Jog~ndra, Golap Sundari and Padma Dassi, the widow of Sidheswar, another son of Rajendra, for the • 1 .. • S.U.R. SUPREMl~ COURT REPORTS 409 construction of the wills ofDwarka Nath and Rajendra, 1953 for partition :i-nd ?ther ,relief~. T~e idol was not m.ade Srec Sree 1 shwiir a party to this smt. 'Ihe said ~mt was compromised Sridhar Jew and on the 24th Novemb
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.