S.Narayan, J. - (1.) This is an appeal arising out of an order dated July 22, 1993 passed by a Single Bench of this court in o.s. suit No. 135 of 1992, whereby an originating summons was dismissed upon a preliminary point without answering any of the questions raised therein.
(2.) The impugned order is a short one and, therefore, for convenience's sake, the relevant extract of the said order needs be first set out as follows:- "Even if it is determined that the defendant No.1 has no right to occupy the said premised, upon a true construction of the deeds in question yet in the exercise of the jurisdiction of giving answer to questions raised in an originating summons, this court would lack that power to pass a decree of eviction, which only can ultimately be completed redressal of the grievance of the plaintiffs in this O.S. Suit. A piecemeal determination of rights of alleged shebaits, trustees or secretaries in general should not be gone into, if it is found that such a determination would still leave open the further question of the grant of the consequent relief of actual eviction from the premises alleged to be unauthorisedly occupied."
(3.) As to the questions sought to be answered by the trial court it is to be found that the sole target was to establish on record that the defendant No.1 came in possession of the disputed premises No. 8,9 and 11, Dinu Rakshit Lane, being the Debutter Estate under trust as a Shabaits during his pala commencing on August 2, 1990 and that the subsequent claim of the defendant No.1 over the same as a monthly tenant in collusion with and connivance of the defendant No.2 (the then Secretary) of the Trust Board was invalid and unlawful. With this end in view, the questions as set out in the summons may be enumerated as given below :- (a) Is Secretary or any individual Trustee entitled to or is empowered to deal with the properties of the Amritalal Daw Debuttar Estate or any portion thereof ? (b) Has any Shebait right to remain in possession and/or occupation of any portion of the said premises Nos. 8, 9 and 11 Dinu Rakshit Lane, Calcutta after the expiry of his pala and/or turn of worship of the plaintiff deities ? (c) Is the claim of the defendant No.1, as monthly tenant in respect of the portion of the premises Nos. 8, 9 and 11, Dinu Rakshit Lane, Calcutta, lawful or valid ? (d) Have the defendants or either of them conducted themselves in a manner unbecoming of their position as Shebaits and/or Trustees of the said Trust Estate of Amrit Lal Daw Debuttar Estate? (e) Are the defendants or either of them liable to be removed from the office of the trustee and/or Shebaits of the said Trust Estate?;