- (1.) The suit is a partition suit amongst the heirs of one Gunendrs Nath Mitter who died in 1926 He was a rich Bengalee resident of North Calcutta and so far as the relevant shares in that suit are concerned, he was survived by his five eons who were Aditendra Nath Miller, Anitendra Nath Mitter, Ajiterdra Nilb Mitter, Asitecdra Nath Miiter and Aban'nJra Nath Mitter The names I have given are in descending order of their age. Aditendra Nath Mitter was the eldest brother and Abanindra Nath Mitter was the youngest of the five brothers.
(2.) The issues were raised by the first defendant. Those Issues were 5 in number and are set out below:- 1. Is the premises No. 84B, Muktaram Babu Street, Calcutta including the Thakur Dalan the abode of family Deity Shree Shree Radhamadhab Jew and as such not partible as pleaded in paragraph 2 and 15 of the Written Statement of the Original Defendant No, 1 2. Are the defendant Nos. 1A, 1B and 1C entitled to a decree for partition of the immovable properties mentioned in paragraph 15 of the written statement of the Original defendant No. 1 3. Was the original defendant No. 1 deprived of his right claim in the joint family properties by reason of his Mental illness as alleged in his written statement 4. Are the defendant Nos. 1A, 1B and 1C entitled to a decree for proper accounts as against heirs of the original plaintiff since deceased and defendant No. 2 as well as against the heirs of the original defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of the transaction mentioned in paragraph 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 27A, 27B, 27C, 27D and 31 of the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1 since deceased with all accretion thereto and decree for such same as may be found due and payable with interest in accordance with the share of the defendant Nos. 1A, 1B and 1C 5. To what reliefs, if any, are the parties entitled
(3.) In the matter of dedication or debutter, which is what the first set of defendants set out to setablish, even though the same was not clearly pleaded in the written statement of Abanindra, they bad no material at all which could given them any reasonable hope of success even from the commencement'. In the matter of dedication of properly to a deity or creation of an enforceable charge or interest in favour of a deity in relation of Immovable property, four questions always have to be answered. These would be, who dedicated the property, how the properly was dedicated, when Che property war dedicated, and lastly what properly was dedicated If we take the first of these questions as to who dedicated the property, the answer to this in the instant case would have to be that all the five brothers dedicated the property, i.e. 84B, Muktarara Babu Street to Radha Madhav Jew. there is no deed of dedication to that effect. I accept the submissions of Mr. Goho, who appeard for the first set of defendants, that in accordance with law of religious and charitable trust in India, a deed of dedication is not a must, but that the parties can dedicate validly by their acts and conduct alone. Yet, that conduct would have to be clearly spelt out, and proved at trial.;