Pratap Kumar. Ray, J. - (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. This Second Appeal has cropped up on challenge of the judgment and decree dated 20th day of March, 1991 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, 2nd Court at Midnapore in Title Appeal No. 168 of 1990 affirming the judgment and decree dated 14th July, 1990 passed by the learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Midnapore in Title Suit No. 38 of 1987. The defendants in the suit is the appellant herein. This appeal was admitted for hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 6th July, 1992 by the order of the Division Bench on the grounds as made out in the memorandum of appeal. This appeal came up before me for hearing on diverse dates when this Court in view of the mandate under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure wanted to frame the substantial question of law before final hearing of the appeal though, earlier the appeal was admitted for hearing on all the grounds as taken in the memorandum of appeal. The learned Advocate for the appellant suggested the substantial question of law as follows : "Both the learned Court below failed to appreciate the legal position of law about endowment of any property to the deity and the provision for changing sebaitship by the founder of the Deity". To substantiate this point as a substantial question of law, the learned Advocate for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court by referring the judgments of both the Courts below. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the Exhibit-I is the Arpannama in favour of the Deity as executed by the founder though is not containing any provision allowing the founder to change the mode of sebaitship and/or Management of the seba puja of the Deity by the sole sebait, but founder member had the every right to change such arrangement by executing the authority of Arpannama appointing his two sons as sebaits in place of and in lieu of one son the plaintiff who was earlier appointed as sebait, by the first Arpannama. The learned Advocate for the appellant strenuously argued that on this point, both the Courts below came to a wrong decision by holding that in absence of any express provision in the Arpannama, there was no scope to the founder to make any change in the Management of the seba puja by the sebaits. Strong reliance has been made to the judgment passed in the case Sripati Chatterjee vs. Krishna Chandra Banerjee, reported in 41 Calcutta Law Journal, P-22 (1924). The learned Advocate for the respondent- plaintiff on the other hand, has strongly opposed this to consider the suggestion as a substantial question of law by contending inter alia that the question as raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant is a settled question of law by pronouncement of several judgments of this Court and even by considering the judgment as referred to by the learned advocate for the appellant. It is contended, inter alia that without any express provision in any Deed of Arpannama whereby the property has been dedicated to Deity, there is no scope for change of sebaitship as the Deed of Arpannama is not equated with a Deed of gift. In support of his such contention, the learned Advocate for the appellant also has drawn the attention of the Court in respect of the findings of both the Courts below whereby the Court below considered the issue and answered against the defendant, the present appellant herein. The learned Advocate for the respondent relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of Narayan Chandra Dutta v. Smt. Bhuban Mohini Basu Mullick, reported in 38 Calcutta Weekly Notes, P.15 to contend that the findings of both the Courts below are in accordance with law where both the Courts below held that once the sebaitship arrangement is made by any Deed of Arpannama without any express provision to change such sebaitship, the founder-member has no authority and/or power to do such. On hearing the parties and on perusing the judgment, it appears that in the judgment passed in the case Narayan Chandra (supra), the point thrust by the learned Advocate for the appellant relying upon Sripati Chatterjee (supra), has been considered by the Division Bench and dissented from the observation and findings made in the said Sripati Chatterjee (supra)'s case. The Division Bench in Narayan Chandra Dutta (supra)'s case followed three judgments, namely, Gouri Kumari Dasi v. Indra Kumar Mukhopadhyay, reported in 26 Calcutta Weekly Notes, P. 920 and Chandi Charan Das v. Dulal Puke, reported in 36 Calcutta Weekly Notes, P. 930 and Smt. Monorama Dasi v. Dhirendranath Basu, reported in 34 Calcutta Weekly Notes, P. 1087 . In the instant case, the property of Deity is a private debutter and from the first Arpannama as executed by the parents of both the plaintiff and defendants of the suit, there is no such express provision or reservation allowing the founder-members to change the line of sebaitship and/or to amend or modify such Management and seba puja of the Deity by the sebait. In the judgment passed in the case Chandi Charan Das v. Dulal Pyke, reported in 30 Calcutta Weekly Notes, P. 930 , Justice Paze observed "founder becomes functus officio after execution of Arpannama". Hence, it is now a settled legal position that once sebiatship is fixed without any reservation in the Deed of Arpannama to change such line of sebiatship, the founder has no power as he becomes functus officio after execution of the Arpannama and he cannot change such by any subsequent deed. In the instant case, the undisputed fact remains, .that originally one Arpannama was executed in favour of the plaintiff entrusting him the responsibility of the seba puja of the deity, as established and founded by the parents of the plaintiff by appointing the plaintiff as a sole sebait and subsequently, the defendants claimed the right of sebaitship on the ground of a second Arpannama executed by their parents changing the mode of sebaitship by adding the defendant as sebait along with plaintiff of the suit. The learned Trial Court below and the 1st Appellate Court considered the matter in depth and came to a finding, on scrutiny and analysis of the evidence as well as the documents the Arpannamas, that there was no express provision in the Arpannamas to change such line of sebaitship and/or add any new sebait by the founder members and accordingly, the second Arpannamas by which the defendant claimed its right, did not empower the defendant with any right of sebaitship. Having regard to such, this Court is of the view that this point as thrust by the learned Advocate of the appellant in the 2nd Appeal cannot be said as a substantial question of law involved for adjudication by this Court by exercising power under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. It is simply a legal question of law, which is now a settled question of law. In that view of the matter, the Court is not considering and rightly to say so, that this appeal does involve any substantial question of law. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Let the Lower Court records be sent back forthwith to the Court below. Let a decree be drawn up accordingly by the department.;