P.C.Mallick, J. - (1.)This is a suit challenging alienation of certain debutter properties. The debutter was created by two deeds executed by Raja Pitambar Mitra and Rani Nandarani on January 18, 1806 and May 17, 1824, respectively.
(2.)The properties created debutter by such deeds are very valuable properties consisting of a large number of lands and premises in and around Calcutta. The alienation in the instant case is by way of long leases granted by three persons constituting the committee of management under a scheme framed by this Court in an administration suit being Suit No. 1528 of 1926. The decree framing the scheme will have to be considered later in detail. The preliminary decree was passed in the said suit on March 30, 1934 and the final decree was passed on January 28, 1939 confirming the report of the Official Referee dated March 7, 1938.
(3.)On December 4, 1950 a second suit for administration of the same debutter estate was instituted in this Court being Suit No. 4575 of 1950. This suit was instituted by one Ashalata Mazumdar, a shebait as next friend of the two deities. The two deities and the said Ashalata Mazumdar are the plaintiffs. All the other shebaits were impleaded as defendants. Allegations have been made in the plaint in that suit, that the debutter estate was not being administered according to the scheme laid down in the decree in Suit No. 1528 of 1926, that of the five members elected on December 16, 1943 to constitute the managing committee, one died and the other resigned, that no steps were taken to fill up the vacancy as provided in the scheme, that the remaining members of the managing committee went on administering the debutter estate illegally, contrary to the scheme, that they granted long leases of the debutter properties and were otherwise guilty of various acts of mismanagement and dereliction of duty and that the scheme has become infructuous and has inherent defects. On these allegations it is prayed that a new scheme be framed in the said suit, that the surviving member of the managing committee elected in 1943 be removed from management and that the debutter estate be administered by the Court. In the said suit the Official Receiver was appointed Receives of the entire debutter estate by an order dated December 30, 1950. By an order dated December 20, 1951, leave was granted to the Official Receives to institute suit or suits in the Court of competent jurisdiction to set aside or avoid the leases granted by the said three members of the managing committee in favour of Hem Chandra Naskar and Jogendra Nath Naskar. Pursuant to the leave granted, this suit has been instituted by the Official Receiver as Receiver appointed in Suit No. 4575 of 1950 for a declaration that the three leases dated May 3, 1946, November 29, 1946 and December 26, 1946, all in favour of Hem Chandra Naskar and Jogendra Nath Naskar or either of them are void and not binding on the debutter estate. There is also a prayer for cancellation of the said three leases. The subject-matter of these leases being situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court, this suit was instituted originally in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Alipore on May 1, 1952 and then transferred to this Court by an order of this Court made under Clause (13) of the Letters Patent. Shortly prior to this date, pursuant to the leave granted on April 28, 1952, another suit was instituted by the Official Receiver being Suit No. 1654 of 1952 for cancellation of another lease in favour of the same lessees, the lease being dated December 23, 1947, and for a declaration that the same was not binding on the debutter estate. Most of the properties covered by the said lease is situate within the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendants impleaded in both the suits are the deities, the two lessees, Hem Chandra Naskar and Jogendra Nath Naskar and the three members of the managing committee who granted the leases, namely, Khogendra Lala Mitra, Sachindra Lala Mitra and Abani Ghose. The transferred suit being Extraordinary Suit No. 6 of 1957 was tried first and a large number of witnesses and a mass of documentary evidence was tendered. It was agreed that the evidence in the transferred suit would be treated as evidence in the other suit. During the pendency of the suit Hem Chandra Naskar died, so also the defendant Sachindra Lala Mitra.