Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sri Sri Laxmi Narayan Jew vs Sri Atindra Narayan Roy Barman on 20 May, 2025

Author: Soumen Sen

Bench: Soumen Sen

20.05.2025
Sl No.9
Court No.8
    (gc)
                         FMA 936 of 2012
                          CAN 5 of 2025

                     Sri Sri Laxmi Narayan Jew
                                 Vs.
                  Sri Atindra Narayan Roy Barman

                            Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee,
                            Mr. Sudipta Kr. Das,
                            Mr. Samirul Sardar,
                            Mr. Soumya Chatterjee
                                                 ...for the Appellant.


             1.     The respondent is the petitioner.             It is

submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, an application being CAN 4657 of 2012 was filed seeking addition of two other shebaits of the debutter property as a party to the proceeding by an order dated January 22, 2014. The said application was allowed. However, as on date there are three shebaits to the debutter estate and all of them are parties in this proceeding. There is no other shebait/trustee of the debutter estate other than the three. The shebaits are the lineal decendants of late Harinath Roy Barman and late Surendralal Roy Barman, the later being the founder trustee of the debutter estate.

2. It is submitted that three shebaits in a meeting held on 1st August, 2017 unanimously resolved that it would be impossible to maintain the temple and meet the daily expenses of the deity and the 2 debutter property may be suitably developed to augment income for the deity. The temple requires immediate repair and none of the shebaits are financially sound to maintain the debutter property. The applicants are in contemplation of entering into a development agreement for which they shall apply before the Jurisdictional Court for necessary permission.

3. The merits of the perempt order is not required to be gone into because of the subsequent events which make the perempt order infructuous.

4. On the undertaking that they shall apply before the Jurisdictional Court for permission to enter into a development agreement, we dispose of the appeal with the aforesaid observation.

5. Accordingly, the appeal and the application are disposed of.

6. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

7. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Soumen Sen, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)