Chandra Narayan Laik,J. - (1.) This is a long and sad story, connected with a Foundation or Institution popularly Known as Jadabpur Kaibalyadham (hereinafter shortly stated as Dham), which is the subject -matter of the present litigation, founded by Sree Sree Ram Chandra Thakur (hereinafter shortly stated as Sree Thakur). It is inter -mixed partly with the other Dhams founded by Sree Thakur situate in Bangladesh, viz., Pahartali and Dingamanik and inter -mixed partly with the threat authorised by a lawyer Sri Sudhansu Banerjee, the Plaintiff No. 1 (Respondent No. 27). The blatant assumption of the nine Plaintiffs, amongst whom Sri Amiya Roy Choudhury (also known as Dadaji) is one, is that the Dham is a public institution which the Mohant (Defendant No. 2)(Sri Brojendra Nath Banerjee, now dead) first failed to anticipate and then coped with adequately. This story is better told by my learned brother in chronological order, historical, perspective with summary of evidence and the discussion on relative case laws.
(2.) The controversy touches and involves delicate and abstruse questions or doctrines relating to Hindu religious endowments. In our view, it admits of a considered decision upon principles of law though based on limited range of facts and capsule history of events.
(3.) The case was considered in some depth. We have to acknowledge the care which has been manifested in the arguments of both Mr. Banamali Das appearing on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. R.C. Deb for the Respondent Mohant and of Mr. Shyama Charan Mitter for some other Defendants -Respondents supporting the Mohant. We had the advantage of hearing another delicious and increasingly useful argument of Mr. Radhakanta Mukherjee who appeared for the Respondent No. 1 Sree Sree Kaibalyanath Satyanarayan Jew. Mr. Mukherjee's arguments regarding the concept of the Hindu deity and the first principles of kaibalya from the old texts, are instructive and much appreciated by us. It was said that kaibalya cannot be meant for public. It is an impossibility. It must be limited to the disciples. Nam is equated with the eternal truth. To say all these, is to say the obvious. His submissions, adroitly tuned, was that it was exclusively a private endowment. He supported Mr. Deb. The doubts which might have warranted a different line of judgment after Mr. Das' argument, have ultimately disappeared after the hearing was concluded.;