PRAMATHA NATH SARMA Vs. PRAFULLA CHANDRA GOSWAMI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the Plaintiff Briefly the facts are that the plain -tiff is the Doli representing the Kamakhya Temple, Lands were granted to Kamakhya Temple for its maintenance by the Ahom Kings at different times. The Government also had granted Lakheraj pallas in favour of the Temple in respect of these lands. It is not disputed that the Doloi manages the property of the temple and has got the right to settle the land of the temple. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are grandsons of one late Keshab Chandra Barua Plaintiff; admits that in the year 1319 B.S. the then Doloi of the temple settled 4 B. 3 K, 5 L. of land belonging to the temple with Keshab Chandra Barua whose heirs are Defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The lease was given to Keshab Chandra Barua to establish a 'Siba Mandir' and for construction of an 'Atithisala' for pilgrims and 'sannyasis'. The allegation of the Plaintiff in the plaint is that no 'Siba Mandir' or 'Atithi sala was established by Keshab Chandra Barua. On the other hand Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 gave a sub -lease of a portion of the land to Defendant No. 4 who has constructed a house for his business. As the Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had no right to sub -lease the land, the lease is forfeited and Plaintiff has claimed a decree for recovery of possession over the suit land by ejectment of the Defendants.

(2.) THE case of the Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and No. 4 is that the land was settled with Keshab Chandra Barua for one hundred vears and the Defendants' predecessor established the 'Siba Mandir' and also constructed a Dharm sala. There is no bar in the lease to sublease the land and thus Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were competent to sublet the land The Defendants further aver that they have been paying the rent agreed upon They sent by money order the rent to the Plaintiff Doloi but he refused to accept. The suit is for recovery of possession. There is no prayer for cancellation of the lease.

(3.) MR . Goswami who appears for the Appellant, has urged three points before as It is firstly contended that the Doloi is not competent to execute a lease of the property (sic) inure beyond the life time of the Doloi. particularly when the lease is not beneficial to the temple. The first answer to this contention is that -there is no prayer for cancellation of the lease on the ground that it was executed by the predecessor of the Plaintiff who was not competent to do so. so as to be valid beyond his life -time Secondly it is stated both in the Kabuliyat and the patta and also it appears from the evidence that at the lime when the lease was executed, the land was forest land and was of no use to the temple Under those circumstances if the lease was given for the purpose of establishing a "Siba" temple and for the construction of a Dharmasala even on a nominal rent, it cannot be said that the lease was not for the benefit of the temple The point was really not pressed also before the court below, as will appear from the judgment of the trial court In any view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Doloi was not competent, to execute the lease.