Mrs. Sunita Seal & Ors vs Alpana De & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1440 Cal/2

                 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

                 (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)

                            ORIGINAL SIDE

Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Krishna Rao



                            CSOS 2 of 2019

                        Mrs. Sunita Seal & Ors.

                                 Versus

                            Alpana De & Ors.



           Mr. Swatarup Banerjee
           Ms. Somali Mukhopadhyay
                                          .....For the plaintiff nos. 1 & 3.


           Mr. Aniruddha Mitra
           Mr. Gaurav Purkayastha
           Ms. Sushmita Choudhury
                                          .....For the plaintiff nos. 2 & 4.


           Mr. Rahul Karmakar
           Ms. Papiya Roy
                                          ....For the defendant no. 4.


           Mr. Anirban Ghosh
                                                 ....For the defendant no. 5.


Hearing Concluded On : 16.05.2023

Judgment on           : 21.06.2023
                                       2


Krishna Rao, J.:


1.

The plaintiffs being the legal heirs of deceased Manoj Lal Seal have filed

the present Originating Summons Suit for answering the following

questions :-

A. Whether the wife, daughter and sons of late Manoj Lal Seal shall have the exclusive power to manage and administer the properties as mentioned in "Lot-B" of the terms of settlement in exclusion to the properties mentioned in "Lot-A" and "Lot -C" of the said terms of settlement filed in Suit No. 262 of 1965?

B. Whether the parties hereto being the successor in interest/or legal heirs and representatives of Mahan Lal Seal and Manoj Lal Seal are borne by the decree of May 7, 1982?

C. Whether the defendants as co-shebaits have any authority or power to stall and/or refuse induction of the plaintiffs as co-shebaits of the Diety?

D. Whether any other person other than the plaintiffs being the heirs of Manoj Lal Seal can administer or manage or look after the properties mentioned in "Lot- B" in the judgment and decree of May 7, 1982?

2. One Monohar Lal Seal, the predecessor of the plaintiffs was the sole and

absolute owner of various properties including land and buildings.

During his lifetime, Manohar Lal Seal had executed three

Arpannmas/Deeds of Dedication in favour of three deities in the

following manner:

a. On 22nd April, 1931, Monohar Lal Seal executed a Bengali Deed of Arpannama which was duly registered before the Registrar of Assurance, Calcutta dedicating certain properties in favour of the deity of Sri Sri Lakshmi Narayan Jiew.

b. On 23rd February, 1932, Monohar Lal Seal executed a Bengali Deed of Arpannama duly registered before the Registrar of Assurance Calcutta dedicating certain properties in favour of the deity Sri Sri Gopal Jiew.

c. On 7th June, 1949, Monohar Lal Seal executed a Bengali Deed of Arpannama duly registered before the Registrar of Assurance Calcutta dedicating certain properties in favour of the deity Sri Sri Mahadeb Jiew.

3. By the said Deeds, the said Monohar Lal Seal absolutely and irrevocably

dedicated the immovable properties mentioned in Schedule 'Ka' of the

said family unto his family deities Sri Sri Lakhsmi Narayan Jiew &

Others with a view to make permanent provisions for the daily and

occasionally seva, puja and periodical puja archana, festival and other

pious practices connected therewith. By the said Deed of Arpannama,

the settlor appointed himself as the first shebait.

4. The Deed of Arpannamas provides that after his death his three sons,

namely Mohon Lal Seal, Monoj Lal Seal and Mohit Lal Seal and if any

other son is born during the lifetime of the settlor then all of them each

adult son himself and, if any, son or sons minor then the guardian or

guardians of the minor son or sons shall be appointed as Shebait and

they shall jointly look after the administration and preservation of the

Debutter properties and of the performance of seva, puja and periodical

puja archana of the said deities. During the lifetime, Mohan Lal Seal

acted as shebait and he died on 26th March, 1963. On his death, his

three sons became shebaits to carry out seva puja and act in accordance

with the terms of the Arpannama.

5. Mohit Lal Seal filed suit being Suit No. 262 of 1965 against Mohan Lal

Seal and Manoj Lal Seal before this Court and accordingly on 7th May,

1982 in accordance with the terms of settlement entered between the

parties to the suit, a decree was passed wherein all the immovable

properties mentioned in the Arpannamas were divided in three lots that

is "Lot-A", "Lot-B" and "Lot- C". As per the Judgment and Decree, Lot-A

was to be administered by the branch of Mohan Lal Seal, Lot-B by the

branch of Monoj Lal Seal and Lot-C by the branch of Mohit Lal Seal.

6. On 9th November, 2014, Mohan Lal Seal died leaving behind his wife and

five daughters. The five daughters of have filed an Originating Summons

Suit being CSOS No. 2 of 2015 before this Court for answering the

following questions:

a) Whether the wife and daughters of late Mohan Lal Seal entitled to become shebait on the death of the Mohanlal Seal in respect of the aforesaid debutter estates namely Sri Sri Lakshmi Narayan Jew and Sri Sri Mahadeb Jew?

b) Whether the wife and daughters of late Mohan Lal Seal shall have the exclusive power to manage and administer the properties as mentioned in Lot-A of the aforesaid terms of the settlement in exclusion to the properties mentioned in Lot-B and Lot-C of the said terms of settlement filed in Suit No. 262 of 1965?

c) Whether the terms of settlement entered in Suit No. 262 of 1965 is binding upon the heirs of late Mohanlal Seal?

7. This Court by a judgment dated 23rd July, 2015 had answered all the

questions raised above in affirmative.

8. Manoj Lal Seal died on 28th August, 2018 and after his death, the

plaintiffs being the legal heirs of the deceased Manoj Lal have made

several written requests to the other Shebaits, the defendant therein

requesting for their confirmation for the induction of the plaintiffs as co-

shebaits to manage and administer exclusively the properties of Lot-B.

As the other shebaits are deliberately evading and avoiding to induct the

plaintiffs as co-sharers in the Lot-B property, the plaintiffs have filed the

present Originating Summons Suit.

9. Mr. Raul Karmaker, learned Advocate representing the defendant No.4

submits that the plaintiffs cannot be inducted as co-shebaits as several

cases have been initiated against the plaintiffs and have committed

moral turpitude. The defendant No. 5 submits that he is not having any

objection to induct the plaintiffs as co-shebaits with respect of Lot-B

property. Though Mr. Karmakar, learned Advocate representing the

defendant No. 4 has submitted that the plaintiffs were committed moral

turpitude but the defendant no. 4 has not submitted any evidence in

support of the allegation.

10. In the suit filed by Mohit Lal Seal being Suit No. 262 of 1965 against

Mohanlal Seal and Manoj Lal Seal before this court and on 7th May,

1982, this Court passed the Decree wherein all the immovable properties

mentioned in the Arpannamas were divided into three lots out of which

Lot-B is given to the Branch of Manoj Lal Seal. The decree passed by this

Court dated 7th May, 1982 was duly accepted by the parties. After the

death of Mohanlal Seal, the Branch of Mohanlal Seal who did not have

any male heirs and had left behind his wife and five daughters

accordingly, the daughters of Mohan Lal Seal have applied for

determination of the questions raised by the daughters of Mohanlal Seal

as mentioned in paragraph 6 supra and this Court has given answer in

affirmative to the quarries raised by the legal heirs of Mohanlal Seal.

11. In the present suit also the plaintiffs have raised the similar issue which

is already decided by this Court by a judgment dated 23rd July, 2015.

12. The only contention raised by the defendant No. 4 that the plaintiffs

have committed various criminal acts and the act committed by the

plaintiff is of moral turpitude but the defendant No. 4 has neither filed

any affidavit in support of his allegation nor had produced any

documents and as such without any evidence, this Court cannot rely

upon the oral submissions made by the counsel for the defendant No.4.

13. In view of the above, this Court said answered the question in this

Originating Summons as follows:

i) Question No.(A) is answered in the affirmative.

ii) Question No.(B) is answered in the affirmative.

iii) Question No.(C) is answered in the affirmative.

iv) Question No.(D) is answered in the negative.

14. CSOS No. 2 of 2019 is thus allowed.

(Krishna Rao, J.)