LexSREE SREE ISWAR GOPAL JIEU THAKUR versus PRATAPMAL BAGARIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1951 Ma""' 14. 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1951) appellant on the first charge in both the cases are quashed, the conviction and sentence on the third charge in the second case are affirmed . . Appeal allpwed in part. Agent for the appellants: S. Subramanian. Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta. SREE SREE ISWAR GOPAL JIEU THAKUR II. PRATAPMAL BA.GARIA AND OTHERS. (Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1949) PRATAPMAL BAGARIA AND OTHERS II. SREE SREE ISWAR GOPAL JIEU THAKUR. (Civil Appeal No. 96 of 1949) [SAJYJD FAZL ALI, s. R: DAS and CBANDRASEKHARA AIYAR JJ.) RelifiO#S e""-ents-Alienation by trustee-Legal necessity -01' lr•,.IMlions-Original parties and witnesses not a•ailable- V alue of ,.citals-Permanent lease-Not questioned by successive trustu1-Presumption of validity. Where the issue is whether there was legal necessity for a particular transaction, if all the original parties to the transaction and those who could have given evidence on the relevant points have passed away, a recital consisting of the principal circum- stances of the case assumes greater importance and cannot be lightly set aside. Ba,.ga Chandra Dhar Biswas v. ]agat Kishore Chowdhuri (43 I.A. 249) referred to. Where the.validity of a permanent lease granted by a shebait has remained unquestioned for a very long time since the grant, although it is not possible to ascertain fully what the circum- stances were in which it was made, the Court should assume that the grant was made for necessity so as to be valid beyond the life time of the gran tor. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 333 Bawa Magniram Sitaram v. Kasturbhai Manibhai (49 I.A. 54) 1951 referred to. _ - Sree Sree Iswar CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Appeals from GopaZ J>eu judgments and decrees of the High Co~rt o.f Judicature Thakur at Calcutta dated 25th August, 1943, m First Appeals v. Nos. 20 and 173 of 1939 which arose out of a decision Pra~ of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal B":,;~;8~ in Case No. 95 of 1935. Civil Appeals Nos. 95 and 96 of 1949. Panchanan Ghose (Upendra Chandra Mullick, with him) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 95 and respondent in Civil Appeal No. 96. S.P. Sinha (Nagendra Nath Bose, with him) for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in Civil Appeal No. 95 and appellants Nos., 1 to 3 in Civil Appeal No. 96. S. N. Mukherjee, for respondent No. 4 in Civil Appeal No. 95. 1951. March 14. The judgment of the Court was delivered by -FAZL ALI J.-These appeals are directed againstthe ra:i~uJ. judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in West Bengal, confirming a decision of the President of the Calcutta Improvement Tribu- nal, which modified an award of the First Land Acqui- sition Collector of Calcutta, made under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the acquisition of two premises, which may conveniently be referred _ to as Nos. 140 and 141, Cotton Street. - In order to understand the points of contest between the various claimants. to the compensation awarded in the case, it seems necessary to refer to certain facts' showing how they came to be interested in the pre- mises which are the subject-matter of the land acquisi- tion proceedings. These premises belonged at one time to one Sewanarayan Kalia, and afterwards they became the property of a deity, Sree Sree Iswar Gopal Jieu Thakur, installed by Sewanarayan Kalia at Chinsurah in the district of Hoogly. Sewanarayan, who had three wives, died in 1836, leaving behiQd him his third wife, Muni Bibi, two daughters by his 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1951] 1951 predeceased wives, these being Jiban Kumari and S S- 1 Amrit Kumari, and a mistress named Kissen Dasi. "" '" '"""'O A Gopa! Jieu n the 23rd ugust, 1836, these persons executed a Thakur deed of solenama which was in the nature of a family v. arrangement, by which the remainder of the estate of Pratapmal Sewanarayan (i.e., what was left after excluding the Bagai-ia and dedicated properties) was divided in the terms of his Otlw•. will, with the result that Muni Bibi got subject to ra.z Ali J. certain conditions, among other properties, the premises described as 140, Cotton Street, and Jiban Kumari got the contiguous premises, No. 141, Cotton Street. Muni Bibi and Jiban Kumari also became the shebaits of the Thakur or deity with power to appoint their suc- cessors. On the 20th January, 1848, Muni Bibi by an arpannamadedicated 140, Cotton Stre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.