Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Nirmal Chandra Banerjee And Anr. vs Jyoti Prosad Bandopadhya And Ors. on 12 March, 1941

Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Jieu Thakur ... vs Jahor Lal Mukhopadhya And Ors. on 17 August, 1944

The order for his removal was finally made by this Court only on 12th March 1941, by the judgment of Mukherjea and Biswas, JJ. in Nirmal Chandra v. Jyoti Prosad Thereupon, on 23rd June 1941, Kumar Krishna made an application for amendment of his plaint. In the plaint as originally framed he had based his claim solely on the niyogapatra Ex. l, which his father had executed in his favour on 80th October 1933, in exercise of the power of appointment conferred by Bidhu Bhusan's will. Upon Nirmal's removal from shebait-ship, Kumar Krishna claimed in the alternative that he should be declared to have succeeded to his father in the office as the eldest of his heirs in terms of Bidhu Bhusan's will, presumably on the footing that Nirmal's removal operated, as civil death. The deity was not a party to the suit, but the defendants were Jyoti Prosad, Tushar Banjan and Nirmal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Tarit Bhusan Rai And Anr. vs Sri Sri Iswar Sridhar Salagram Shila ... on 16 June, 1941

In special cases the Court may appoint some one to represent it. The rules of law that can be gathered from the decided cases in this respect appear to be--(1) that normally a shebait alone can represent an idol in a suit or proceeding; (a) that where there are several shebaits, the entire body of them will represent the idol; (b) that under some special circumstances even a co-shebait can represent the idol; Nirmal Chandra v. Jyoti Prosad that it is only under some special circumstance that the idol may be represented by (a) a prospective shebait; (b) a worshipper or any person interested in the endowment; (3) that when persons other than the shebaits come to represent the idol, they can represent the idol only by an appointment by the Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Sree Sree Sreedhar Jew vs Kanta Mohan Mullick And Ors. on 19 July, 1945

35. Since the right of suit is vested in the sebait it must follow that, ordinarily, he alone can institute a suit in the thakur's name. When there are a number of sebaits this right is not theirs severally but they must act jointly. Usually all the sebaits should join as co-plaintiffs in a suit brought on behalf of a deity, and only such of them should be made defendants as are unwilling to be joined as plaintiffs or have done some act precluding them from being plaintiffs : vide Nirmal Kumar v. Jyoti Prasad and the authorities therein cited; this principle must be the same whether the suit is in the name of the idol or in the names of the sebaits. In special circumstance, one or some of the sebaits can institute a suit and, in such instance, the other sebaits must be made defendants.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Sri Iswar Dashabhuja Thakurani And Ors. vs Sm. Kanchanbala Dutta And Ors. on 12 September, 1977

In Nirmal Chandra v. Jyoti Prosad reported in 45 Cal WN 709 : (AIR 1941 Cal 562) it has been held that a shebait as a party interested in the endowment can bring an action. In the first place a co-shebait can bring a suit on the principle that a suit on behalf of the deity can be brought by some of the co-shebaits when the rest are unwilling to join the plaintiff or have done acts precluding them from doing so. In the second place it can be justified on the ground that the deity can sue through a next friend who has no interest adverse to it and it is immaterial that such next friend happens to be one of the shebaits.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Radha Charan Saha vs Sree Sree Iswar Joykali Bigraha ... on 11 August, 1941

2. The first Court held that the plaintiffs' claim for ejectment must fail, but the learned Munsif gave the plaintiffs a partial decree for rent to the extent of Rs. 184-4-0. The plaintiffs appealed to the lower appellate Court and the learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs' suit was maintainable, that the notice to quit was valid and that the plaintiffs were entitled to khas possession of the tenancy by evicting the principal defendant from the same. Radha Charan Saha, defendant 1, has now appealed to this Court. The learned advocate for the appellant maintains that the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable as it had been instituted on behalf of the deity by some of the shebaits only. He further contends that the ejectment notice was invalid by reason of the fact that two of the she-baits were not associated therewith and that, in any event, this notice related only to a portion of the tenancy. With regard to the first of these points the general rule was formulated in a recent judgment of this Court in Nirmal Chandra v. Jyoti Prosad it was there laid down that:
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bhikari Prusti vs Madan Mohan Jiu Thakur And Ors. on 23 October, 1952

Mr. Pal relies upon a decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in -- 'Nirmal Chandra v. Jyoti Prasad', AIR 1938 Cal 709 for the proposition of law that special circumstances conducive to the benefit of the idol validate an alienation of the 'shebaitship inter vivos'. The position there is entirely different on account of the reason that the endowment started with a very meagre financial condition, and one Bidhu had made substantial contribution to the endowment by virtue of a deed.
Orissa High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Biranchi Narayan Thakur And Anr. vs Biranchi Narayan Thakur on 7 July, 1953

In the case of -- 'Nirmal Chandra Banerjee v. Jyoti Prasad', AIR 1938 Cal 709 (B) the transfer "' was held valid even though the transferor received some monetary help from the appointee who was left in charge of the debutter property. The learned Judges having found that the transfer was not by way of a sale and although the shebait received a pecuniary assistance from the appointee that was not a consideration for the transfer. Dr. Mukherjea. in his book, at p. 239, doubts the correctness of this decision indeed on the ground that the relinquishment of the office coupled with taking a substantial sum of money from the person appointed looks very much like the sale of the office. On a review of several cases on the subject of the Indian High Courts and of their Lordships of the Privy Council, he concludes that in any view, the question of the deity being benefited or not does not appear to be at all relevant. From the above consideration, therefore, we are definitely of the view that if it is a case of sale, that is to say if the transfer of marfatdari right is for consideration, the transaction is void 'ab initio' and the benefit to the deity is irrelevant.
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1