Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Villagers Of Khanpur Village Repd By ... vs Shi Sri Rai Baghini Dharma Thakur Repd By ... on 4 November, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury
C.O. 3338 of 2023
Villagers of Khanpur Village REPD By Biswajit Mondal & Ors.
VERSUS
Shi Sri Rai Baghini Dharma Thakur REPD By Bijoya Mondal & Ors.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sandip Kundu, Adv.
For the Private Respondent: Mr. Ganesh Srivastav, Adv.
Mr. Snehasis Jana, Adv.
Mrs. Anulekha B. Maiti, Adv.
Mrs. Tutun Das, Adv.
Last Heard on: September 12, 2025 Judgment on: November 04, 2025 Biswaroop Chowdhury,J:
The petitioners before this Court are the Defendants in a suit for Declaration and permanent Injunction pending before Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ghatal being T.S. No-51/2019. The petitioners being aggrieved by the Order No-16 dated September 01, 2023 passed by the Learned 2 Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ghatal in Title Suit No. 51 of 2019 has come up with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The case of the petitioners in brief is that the opposite parties no. 1 to 7 moved an application before the Learned Trial Court seeking police help to implement the Order of injunction. It was the contention of the opposite party no. 1 to 7 that they were not allowed to cut bamboo trees in the suit property. The petitioners filed objection to the said petition and also filed another application for appointment of receiver in respect to the suit properties.
The Learned Trial Court upon considering the application was pleased to dispose the same by observing and directing as follows:
'Hence it is ordered that the instant application u/s-151 of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs for police help for implementation of order of temporary injunction passed by this court vide order no 27 dated 06.12.2022 is considered and allowed on contest but without any cost.
Accordingly, Inspector in charge of Chandrakona P.S is hereby directed to implement the order of temporary injunction passed by this court over the schedule suit property and to take all necessary steps required for implementation of the same in its true spirit as mentioned in paragraph-6.
Let a copy of this order along with the copy of the order of temporary injunction being no 27 dated 06.12.2022 be sent to the I/C of Chandrakona 3 Police Station for taking necessary action. IC Chandrakona Police Station is directed to file a report in this regard.
To 25-09-2023 for awaiting report of I/C Chandrakona P.S ; and hearing of other three pending applications as mentioned in previous order being serial no (ii) (iii) and (iv).' The Petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 01-09-2023 passed by Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ghatal in T.S. 51/2019 has come up with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
It is the contention of the petitioners that the Learned Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction vested in by failing to consider that if the plaintiffs are allowed to maintain the accounts of the number of bamboo trees being uprooted and sold there shall be mismanagement of the Public Debutter. It is further contended that the Learned Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction vested in by failing to consider that a new case has been made out by the plaintiffs/petitioners which is outside the scope of original Order of Injunction. It is also contended that the Learned Court acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it by failing to consider that the order allowing Police help had virtually granted the plaintiffs' right to mismanagement of the property of a Public Debutter.
Heard Learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Learned Advocate for the opposite parties. Perused the petition filed and materials on record. 4
Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that one Hrishikesh Mondal, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit being Title suit no. 140 of 1949 against the villagers of Khanpur, seeking a declaration that the Deity Sri Sri Raibaghini Dharma Thakur is a Private Deity. Title suit no. 140 of 1949 ended in a compromise with specific stipulations that binds both the parties.
The following are the stipulations envisaged under the admitted compromise decree:-
i) The predecessor in interest of plaintiffs has conceded that the nature of the deity is public deity and belongs to the common villagers.
ii) The villagers are also shebaits of the said public deity.
iii) Both the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs as well as the plaintiffs are merely managing shebaits who are acting on behalf of the shebaits/Common Hindu folk of village Khanpur.
iv) The managing shebaits are duty bound to maintain regular accounts and furnish the same to the shebaits-
v) The managing shebaits can not sell or alienate Debuttar Property.
vi) The rights of the managing shebaits shall be hereditary.
Learned Advocate further submits that in view of the binding stipulations that the nature of deity is public deity and the common Hindu Villagers are it's Shebaits and amongst them the plaintiffs once Managing Shebaits the 5 Plaintiffs/Managing shebaits have limited right to manage the deity, subject to the approval of the common Hindu Villagers who are also shebaits. Learned Advocate relies upon the passage from B.K. Mukherjee The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts Tagore Law Lectures fifth Edition P.252 which provides as fillows:
'6.10. Shebaits must act jointly-When there are more Shebaits than one, they constitute one body in the eyes of law and all of them must act together. The management may be for practical purposes in the hands of one of the shebaits who is called managing shebait or the shebaits themselves may exercise their right of management by turns; but in neither case it is competent for one of the shebaits to do anything in relation to the Debutter estate without the accordance either express or implied of his co-shebaits. This is, of course, subject to any express direction given by the grantor. The Judicial Committee in one case, quoted a passage from Lewin's Law of Trusts, which in their opinion applied equally to shebaits in India. The passage runs as follows:-
'In the case of co-trustees the office is a joint one. Where the administration of the trust is vested in co-trustees, they all form as it were but one collective trustee, and therefore must execute the duties of the office in their joint capacity. It is not uncommon to hear one of several trustees spoken of as the acting trustee, but the court knows, no such distinction; all who accept the office are in the eyes of the law acting trustees. If anyone refuses or be incapable to join it is not competent for the others to proceed without him, 6 but the administration of the trust in that case devolve upon the court. However the act of one trustee done with the sanction and approval of a co- trustee may be regarded as the act of both. But such sanction or approval must be strictly proved."
Learned Advocate further submits that admittedly the parties have appeared in the said suit. The plaintiffs are seeking implementation of the ad- interim order of injunction which was passed on the basis of submissions made by the plaintiffs and the rival claim of the parties was not taken into consideration. Admittedly the Defendants/Revisionist have filed an application for amendment in the said suit wherein they have sought to remove the plaintiffs as Managing shebaits. The case made out by the Revisionist in the Learned Trial Court is that the plaintiffs/Managing shebaits is not furnishing accounts to the villagers who are admittedly shebaits of the deity. Thus in the event the Learned Court is not directed to dispose of the said application for temporary injunction and necessary orders seeking implementing by police help be passed subsequent to the passing of the said order of temporary injunction on contest, the rival case of the defendants shall not see the light of the day.
Learned Advocate also submits that the predecessor in interest has conceded that the nature of the deity is public deity and belongs to the common villagers. Hence both the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs as well as the current plaintiffs are estopped from claiming that the deity is a 7 private deity. The managing shebaits are duty bound to maintain regular accounts and furnish the same to the shebaits-villagers of Khanpur from time to time. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate that if the impugned order is sustained the Plaintiffs/Managing shebaits shall continue with the mismanagement of a Public deity's estate in utter violation to the admitted solenama.
Mr. Srivastava Learned Advocate for the contesting opposite parties submits that ka, kha, kha/1, Ga and Gha Schedule properties are absolute Debattar Properties dedicated to "Sri Sri Ray Baghini Dharma". The predecessor of the plaintiffs and proforma defendant no-10 namely one Hrishikesh Mondal since deceased was the sole shebait of the said deity and he used to perform the seba puja of the deity from the income of the Debuttar properties. There was a dispute regarding the Dabuttar properties of the said deity between Hrishikesh Mondal and the villagers of Khanpur. So Hrishikesh Mondal filed a T.S. No-140/1949, before the Court of 1st Sub Judge Medinipur to protect the Debuttar properties, which was transferred to the Court of Learned Munsif Ghatal for trial and disposal and the said case was remumbered as T.S. 82/51. In the said case one solenama was filed on behalf of Hrishikesh Mondal and villagers of Khanpur and as per the said solenama it was decreed that the deity. 'Sri Sri Ray Baghini Dharma' will be treated as the village deity of all the Hindus of Khanpur village and the male legal heirs of Hrishikesh Mondal will be permanently appointed as the Managing shebaits of the deity and they will perform the seba puja from the income of the Debuttar 8 Properties. Hrishikesh Mondal died during pendency of the suit and as such his three sons namely Sachipada Mondal plaintiff no-1 Gopal Chandra Mondal since deceased, the father of plaintiff nos. 2 to 6 and Lal Mohan Mondal the proforma defendant no. 10 were substituted in his place and they were appointed as Managing shebaits of the Debuttar properties to look and manage and administer the Debuttar properties and to perform seba puja of the said deity from the usufruct of the said debuttar properties. Learned Advocate further submits that as per the solenama the villagers of Khanpur shall not interfere with the functioning and administration of the Managing shebaits, and the Managing shebaits shall maintain the accounts of the income and expenses of the Debuttar estate, which account the villagers of Khanpur were entitled to inspect. Learned Advocate also submits that as per the compromise decree the male descendants of said Hrishikesh Mondal shall always be the Managing shebaits of the said Deity and only after the extinction of the male descendant of said Hrisikesh Mondal, the other Hindu villagers of Khanpur would be entitled to manage the said Debuttar.
Learned Advocate submits that as per clause, of the solenama it was decreed that:-
i) 'Sree Sree Rai Bagani Dharma Thakur' shall be gram debota.
ii) As the father of the plaintiffs was the managing shebait of the deity, the plaintiffs shall remain the managing shebaits. 9
iii) The plaintiffs and their heirs and descendants shall be the shebaits of the deity and shall keep the accounts of the debuttar estate.
iv) The Hindu villagers of Khanpur shall be entitled to inspect the said account of the debuttar estate.
v) The plaintiffs' male descandents/heirs shall be the shebaits of the deity.
vi) The shebaits shall not be able to transfer, encumber and/or alienate any present or future acquired property of the debattur estate.
vii) The shebaits shall with the income from the debuttar properties shall perform daily puja of the deity and other religious festivals.
viii) The villagers of Khanpur will not be entitled to remove the plaintiffs and their heirs and descendants from the post of Managing shebaits of the Deity.
ix) The plaintiffs female heirs and others shall not be the Managing shebaits and that if any of the plaintiff do not leave any male descendant/heir the surviving plaintiffs or their male descendants shall be the Managing shebaits.
As per clause-2 of the solenama the plaintiffs as Managing shebaits have been put in exclusive possession of the debuttar estate/properties. As per clause-3 of the solenama only when there is extinction of male descendants of 10 the plaintiffs/Managing shebaits families, the villagers of the Khanpur, shall be entitled to appoint new Managing Shebaits.
Upon hearing the Learned Advocates and considering the facts of the case, it is an admitted position that by an ad-interim order of injunction dated 27/05/2019 the Defendant no-1 to 8 being the petitioners and the opposite party no. 7 were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the 'Kha/1' 'Ga', and 'Gha' schedule property and from managing shebait of the Debuttar properties and also restrain from locking the 'Kha' schedule premises and further not to change the nature and character of the 'Kha/1' Ga and 'Gha' schedule property.
Although an appeal was preferred against the order of ad-interim injunction but the said appeal was dismissed. Thereafter by an order no. 27 dated 06.12.2022 the ad-interim order of injunction was made absolute till the disposal of the suit. Thus the order of injunction which is in force cannot be upset, at this stage.
As there was allegation against the defendants/petitioners for obstructing the Plaintiffs/opposite parties in cutting down bamboo bush for the purpose of sale to fetch income, an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for police help.
The application for police help was allowed and the application for receiver filed by the defendants/petitioners was kept pending. 11
It is the contention of the petitioners that the plaintiffs/opposite parties are desperately seeking implementation of the said order so that they can fulfil their vested interest by cutting the bamboo trees and selling them and making a false account of the trees that are being uprooted and being sold thereby misleading the Learned Court.
As the petitioners have filed counter claim for the removal of managing shebaits although the Solenama provides that the plaintiffs and their heirs and descendants shall be the shebaits of the deity, this issue should not be gone into and considered at this stage and it is upto the Learned Trial Court to decide this issue at the appropriate stage.
However as the Solenama also provides that the plaintiffs and their heirs and descendants shall be the shebaits of the deity and shall keep the accounts of the debattor estate and the Hindu villagers of Khanpur shall be entitled to inspect the said account of the debattar estate and it is well settled principle of law that there exists legal remedy when there is existence of legal rights, the petitioners/villagers are well within their rights to move the competent Court in the event their right to inspect accounts is refused. The petitioners have in their counter claim as well as in the application for appointment of receiver has alleged refusal of the managing shebaits to furnish such accounts and have contended in the objection to the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure giving details of irregularities of sale of fish and agricultural products of Debattar properties by managing sebaits and value of 3500/4000 12 Bamboo shrubs, which the managing sebaits sought to cut and sale. Thus Court being a Guardian of the Deity it is the discretion of the Court to permit sale of any portion of the Debuttar property under the Court appointed receiver/special officer, when there are different allegations with regard to non furnishing of accounts. The Learned Court could have used the discretion in such a situation by permitting cutting of bamboo bush and selling the same under the supervision of the Court appointed receiver without prejudice to the right of the parties in the suit. However as such order is not passed by Learned Trial Court instead of referring the matter for reconsideration it would be reasonable to modify the order passed by the Learned Trial Judge by appointing a special officer.
Hence this application under Article 227 of the Constitution stands disposed. Order dated 01-09-2023 passed by Learned Civil Judge Junior Division Ghatal in T.S. 51/2019 is modified to the extent that the sale of bamboo bush as permitted shall be in the presence of special officers. Learned Special Officers shall fix the date and time of cutting bamboo bushes upon notice to the Learned Advocates for the parties, and upon holding discussion with them in a meeting. Learned special officers shall; be present when bamboo bushes will be cut and record the same in his Minutes with enclosures of total number of bamboo bushes cut. Learned special officers shall also fix date of sale to be conducted in their presence. Upon the sale proceeds being collected by the plaintiffs, Learned Special Officers shall prepare the accounts and submit report before Learned Trial Court within two weeks from the date of 13 sale. Learned Advocate for the defendants and the Learned Advocate for the plaintiff may remain present along with plaintiffs when the bamboo bushes are cut and at the time of sale but only one defendant may remain present on the particular dates. No other persons will be permitted to remain at the time of cutting the bamboo bushes. The police Authority shall ensure that there is no breach of peace, and shall submit report as directed by Trial Court.
Mr. Milan Kumar Maity Learned Advocate Ph-9232338725 and Ms. Anima Maity Learned Advocate Ph-9874450659 are appointed as Joint Special Officers. Learned Special Officers are entitled to an initial remuneration of 800 G.M. each. Incidental costs of the special officers shall be borne by the petitioners. Upon submission of report Learned Special Officers shall stand discharged. Upon being discharged Learned Special Officers shall be entitled to a remuneration of 200 G.M. each. The date for cutting bamboo bushes shall be fixed by Learned Special Officers within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order, and the report to be submitted by Learned Special Officers before Learned Trial Court must be within two weeks from the date of sale of bamboo bushes.
It is hereby made clear that this order is confined to the sale of bamboo bushes of Debuttar Property and maintenance of accounts. Other issues with regard to merits of the suit are kept open to be decided by Learned Trial Court. 14
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)