Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. This contention raises a mixed question of fact and law. These are the main findings of the learned Subordinate Judge on the question of possession of these two properties. Gopinath had occupied a portion of the Calcutta property in 1957 but not the portion specified for the residence of the shebaits under Chintaharan's Deed of Arpannama. Gopinath never realised any rents of the Calcutta property. The appellant-deities through him and the other alleged shebaits filed a rent-suit against a tenant which was defended by that tenant and Sashimukhi and the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. Sashimukhi in her personal capacity and not as a shebait of any deity had been realising the rents of the Calcutta property for over 12 years before 1953 and by execution of the rent decrees also in her personal capacity had realised the rents from some of the tenants of this property. In her personal capacity she had in execution of an ejectment decree against a tenant had recovered possession of a portion of this property in 1953 and letting it out to a new tenant she had realised rents from the new tenant. Gopinath was in occupation of a portion of this property when it was purchased by the respondent No. 1 who had executed, rent-decrees obtained by her against the tenants and she had also recovered possession of this property, excepting the portion occupied by Gopinath, by executing the ejectment-decrees obtained by her against the respondent-tenants of this property. Sashimukhi never acted as the shebait of the appellant-deities whose existence she had completely denied. She had been in exclusive possession of the Nabadwip property as a shebait of the deity installed by her mother and this Nabadwip property is now in exclusive possession of the respondent No. 2 as the shebait of that deity. Sashimukhi defended that suit filed in the City Civil Court denying the existence of the appellant-deities and was in possession of these two properties by setting up her own title to these properties. The Appellant-deities and their alleged shebaits were never in possession of these two properties.