P.N. Mookerjee, J. - (1.) These three appeals are at the instance of the contesting defendant or defendants in the three suits, out of which the appeals arise. The suits were instituted in or about the year 1954 and 1955 and they were numbered as Title Suits Nos. 79 and 80 of 1954 and Title Suit No. 67 of 1955 in the Eighth Court of the Subordinate Judge at Alipore, District 24-Parganas. In Title Suits Nos. 79 and 80 of 1954, the plaintiff Balai Chand Ghosh prayed for a declaration that he was the owner of the disputed properties, included in the suit, and that the deed of endowment, mentioned in the plaint, and marked as Ex. 11(a), was a sham and colourable document, which was never acted upon or given effect to. In Title Suit No. 67 of 1955. the same plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the main contesting defendant Nirmala Bala Ghosh, who was his wife was his benamdar, so far as the disputed properties were concerned, and that the deed of endowment, mentioned in the plaint and marked as Ext. 11. did not create or constitute an absolute dedication to the deities, named there in, but created only a. charge for their Sheba Puja. In this suit, there was also a prayer by the plaintiff that he was the sole shebait of the said deities, although, in the deed (Ext. 11), he and his wife Nirmala Bala were apparently made joint shebaits. The suits have been decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge except with regard to the plaintiffs prayer that he was the sole shebait under the Arpannama (Ext. 11). From these decrees, the present appeals have been filed by the principal contesting defendant or defendants, that is, Nirmala Bala as shebait of the deity or deities concerned and or for self.
(2.) In the court below, the defence plea was that the suit properties were originally Nirmala Balas own properties, having been acquired, not only in her name but also with her money and for her benefit and that, thereafter, they were constituted the debuttar estates of the deities, mentioned in the two Arpannamas [Exts. 11 and 11 (a)]. In this Court, as we shall see presently, that plea has been just a little modified.
(3.) Of the three appeals before us, namely, Nos. 268, 269 and 270 of 1957, First Appeal No. 268 of 1957 arises from the decree in Title Suit No. 79 of 1954; First Appeal No. 269 of 1957 arises from title Suit No. 67 of 1955; and the third or the remaining Appeal, F.A. No. 270 of 1957 arises from the remaining suit, Title Suit No. 80 of 1954. In the two appeals, First Appeal No. 268 of 1957 and the First Appeal No. 270 of 1957, both Nirmala Bala and the deity Sri Sri Gopal Jew', represented by her as the Shebait under the Arpannama [Ext. 11(a)]. are the appellants before us. In the other appeal, First Appeal No. 269 of 1957. Nirmala Bala alone is the appellant. the relevant facts lie within a short compass and the two questions, which really rise for consideration, are whether the suit properties originally belonged to the husband Balai Chand Ghosh or to the wife Nirtnala Bala Ghosh and whether, under the two Arpannamas [Exts. 11 and 11(a)], valid debuttars, either partial or absolute, have been created. The learned Subordinate Judge has answered the first question in favour of the plaintiff and he has held that, although the relevant conveyances and the relative documents of title stand in the name of Nirmala Bala, the said acquisitions were made really by her husband Balai Chand Ghosh 'with his own money, and Nirmala Bala was merely his benamdar. With regard to the two Arpannamas [Exts. 11 and 11(a)] the learned Subordinate Judge has accepted the plaintiffs case in the plaint that, so far as Ext. 11 (a) is concerned, it was a sham paper transaction which was never intended to be acted upon and that, thereunder, no debuttar, either partial or absolute was created. With regard to the other Arpannama (Ext. 11) also, the learned Subordinate Judge was inclined to the view that it was of the same character and was really a sham deed or a sham and paper transaction, never intended to be acted upon, but, having regard to the plaintiffs own case and prayer in the plaint, he did not ultimately go to that length but contented himself by merely giving a declaration that the deed (Ext. 11) created a valid debuttar but only of a partial character and the deities, named therein, only obtained thereunder a charge for their Sheba Puja on the properties covered by the said deed.;