A.M. Sinha, J. - (1.) This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Seventh Court, Alipore, in Title Suit No. 10 of 1990 of that Court refusing to record the compromise arrived at between the parties and to decide and dispose of the suit in terms of such compromise. The learned Asstt. District Judge rejected the petition of compromise accordingly. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Asstt. District Judge passed on April 4, 1991, by his order No. 30 of that date, the Petitioners have come up in revision.
(2.) The short reference to the fact is necessary for appreciating the grievances and contentions of the respective parties. One Kamala Kanta Banerjee owned and possessed valuable properties both moveable and immoveable who died on September 7, 1895, leaving behind a will which was executed by him on August 18, 1894. By this will he bequeathed all his property for the daily seba puja and periodical festival of Sri. Sri. Dadhi Baman installed in his dwelling house. All these properties under the will were dedicated to the said deity as debottar. He appointed under the will Sm. Tailakya Tarini Debi as sebait and trustee for performance of seba puja of the said deity and entrusted her with deity for protection and preservation of such debottar properties. She was also appointed as executrix under the will. Sm. Tailakya Tarini Debi obtained probate in respect of the will on February 5, 1896, from the Court of the District Judge, Alipore, 24 -Parganas. Thereafter she was given the charge of administering the estate after assuming the post of sebait and trustee in respect of the debottar estate and she did so till her death on May 24, 1980. It was laid down in the scheme of the debottar as contained in the will that after the death of Tailakya Tarini, their daughter -in -law would be appointed sebait and, after her death, the eldest and the major son amongst her sons excepting Hiralal and in their absence the eldest grand -son of Kamalakanta would be appointed sebait. After the death of Tailakya Tarini and also of Nandarani, her daughter -in -law, the lineal descendant of the eldest of the eligible son acted as sebait of the debottar estate under the terms of the will which created the debottar estate. But most of them obtained letters of administration from the Court for administration and management of the estate which although were not required to be taken under the law as the management related to debottar estate and not to the estate of the deceased testator, Kamala Kanta Banerjee. The administration of the will was completed after obtaining the probate and creation of debottar under the scheme of the will. The last of such application for letters of administration was made in 1967. It is alleged that Krishna Chandra Banerjee who was preferentially eligible to be appointed as sebait, in fact administrator of the debottar estate for long years, was guilty of mismanagement and malpractice and also mis -appropriation of the compensation money awarded for by Land Acquisition Department for acquisition of land of debottar estate. One Sibdas Banerjee, the grandson of Kamala Kanta Banerjee born in the line of his wedlock with Tailakya Tarini, made the above allegations against the administration of Krishna Chandra and obtained letters of administration for the management of debottar estate.
(3.) This Krishna Chandra preferred an appeal against the judgment of granting of letters of administration in favour of Sibdas Banerjee before the Hon'ble High Court. this Court after hearing allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court below appointing Sibdas as Administrator. Krishna Chandra died on June 24, 1989, leaving his widow Sm. Radha Rani and 4 sons including the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, daughters, who are the Petitioners Nos. 6 and 7 as his heir and heiress and legal representatives under the Hindu Succession Act. It is further alleged that during the last few years of his life Krishna Chandra became blind and depended much on his son Ritendra, opposite party No. 1 in this case, for the purpose of management of the estate who took advantage of his father's blindness and falsely represented himself as sebait and did many illegal acts relating to debottar estate and misappropriated the income of the debottar for his own use. He has been committing all these misconducts to the prejudice of the debottar estate without rendering any accounts to the Petitioners who are interested in the maintenance of the debottar estate. Accordingly, with all these allegations the Petitioners, as Plaintiffs, filed the Title Suit No. 10 of 1990 for certain declaration, vendition of accounts, injunction and other reliefs. They have also prayed for laying down a scheme for the management and maintenance of the debottar estate.;