Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

27. The decision of Nirmala Bala Ghose vs Balai Chand Ghose (supra) relied upon by Mr. Prabhune was rendered in context of a decree which had attained finality. In that case two suits came to be filed seeking declaration of ownership of the properties and for a declaration that the plaintiff's wife Nirmala is benamidar for him and that the deed of dedication did not amount to an absolute dedication of the properties to the deities. The Suit came to be decreed and Nirmala was declared as benamidar of the suit properties. In appeal the Calcutta High Court modified the decrees holding that there was partial dedication in favour of deities. The matter was taken to the Apex Court and the Apex Court rsk 201-SA-271-2011-F6.doc noted that in one of the suit filed by the Plaintiffs against two deities, the plaintiff and his wife Nirmala sought to represent the deities and on objection raised guardian was appointed. The guardian did not challenge the decree passed by the Trial Court as regards the absolute dedication and Nirmala had appealed and contended that there was absolute dedication in favour of deities. The Apex Court considered that decree against two deities has become final as no appeal was preferred to the High Court by the deities and it was not open for Nirmala to challenge the decree in so far as it was against the deities as she did not represent deities. Pertinently, the Apex Court noted that Nirmala is not seeking to claim a more exalted right under the deed for herself, which may require reexamination of the correctness of the decision of the Courts. It is in that context the Apex Court held that power under Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open the decrees which have become final merely because the Appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of the Court appealed from. As noted above, the facts of the case are clearly distinguishable and inapplicable in the present case.