- (1.) The dispute in this case is over the shebaitship of a debattar. The debattar was created by Brindabandas Babajee by an arpannama, which has been marked as an exhibit in this case. By this arpannama Brindabandas Babajee appointed himself as the first shebait and appointed Sundaranandadas Babajee as the next shebait. As regards the appointments of shebaits after Sundarananda, he gave the following directions in the arpannama. As the exact meaning of the Bengali words will require careful consideration in this matter, it is necessary to set out those words fully: Sundarananda continued as shebait till his death. After his death, dispute arose as regards the possession of the properties, and proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started. A receiver was appointed by the criminal court and finally Paramanandadas Babajee was held by the criminal court to be in possession. In the present suit, which was brought thereafter, the case is that, shortly before Sundarananda's death, he appointed Kanaidas Babajee as the shebait, that this was a valid appointment and Paramananda had no right to be in possession of the properties. The main prayers are that Kanaidas Babajee should be declared to be the shebait, that a scheme should be framed for the proper Debsheba and the protection of the debattar estate and that the receiver, who had been appointed by the criminal court, should be directed to make over possession to Kanaidas Babajee, the rightful shebait. There was an alternative prayer that if it was held that there was no valid appointment of Kanaidas Babajee by Sundaranandadas Babajee, Kanaidas Babajee should be appointed the shebait of the debattar properties.
(2.) We are no longer concerned with an objection that was taken under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the finding of the courts below that it was a private debattar was not disputed before us. The Defendants contested the fact of appointment of Kanaidas Babajee by Sundarananda and next contended that, even if there was an appointment, it was not a valid appointment. The trial court rejected both these contentions and held that, as there was a bona fide appointment by Sundarananda, the court was not entitled to go into the question of the validity of the appointment, and gave a decree declaring Kanaidas Babajee to be the rightful shebait and directing the receiver to make over possession to Kanaidas Babajee. The learned Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, was of opinion that Kanaidas Babajee was, in fact, appointed by Sundarananda, but it was open and proper to the court to consider and decide whether the appointment was made in accordance with the arpannama. According to him- The appointee must answer the description laid down in the arpannama, i.e., he must be one in the line of disciple of Brindaban and Sundarananda, must be a Baishnav following the cult of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, must be a man cultivating morality and piety, and must be a udashin. The conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge was that Kanaidas Babajee was, in fact, a disciple of Brindabandas Babajee, though not of Sundarananda, that he was a Baishnav following the cult of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and that there could be no objection to his appointment as shebait on the ground that he was not saddcharsampanna and held that he was udashin attaching to the word the meaning that he was a person without attachment for property. He came to the conclusion, on those facts, that the appointment of Kanaidas Babajee made by Sundarananda was in accordance with all the conditions laid down in the arpannama and that he was validly appointed as shebait. In this view, he dismissed the appeal.
(3.) It has been contended before us in this appeal by two of the Defendants that there was no evidence before the court below to justify the finding of fact that there was in fact an appointment of Kanaidas Babajee by Sundarananda and, secondly, that, in any case, the court of appeal below was wrong in holding that the conditions as laid down in the arpannama were satisfied.;