Laxmi Narayan Jew Vs Atindra Narayan Roy Barman — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Laxmi Narayan Jew Vs Atindra Narayan Roy Barman — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The appeal and the application (CAN 5 of 2025) were disposed of without adjudicating the merits of the perempt order, on the undertaking that the applicants/shebaits shall apply before the Jurisdictional Court for permission to enter into a development agreement; there shall be no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the subsequent events (all three shebaits on record, the unanimous resolution of 1st August, 2017, and the contemplated development agreement), the appeal should be disposed of without going into the merits of the perempt order.

Court's answer

The merits of the perempt order were not required to be gone into, because the subsequent events made the perempt order infructuous.

Ratio / Principle

On the undertaking that the applicants/shebaits shall apply before the Jurisdictional Court for permission to enter into a development agreement, the appeal stands disposed of with that observation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Debutter estate — shebaits — during the pendency of FMA 936 of 2012, CAN 4657 of 2012 seeking addition of two other shebaits of the debutter property was allowed by order dated January 22, 2014; as on date three shebaits of the debutter estate are parties and there is no other shebait/trustee. By a unanimous resolution of 1st August, 2017 the three shebaits found it impossible to maintain the temple and meet the daily expenses of the deity; the temple requires immediate repair and none of the shebaits is financially sound to maintain the debutter property; they contemplate a development agreement to augment income for the deity, for which they shall apply before the Jurisdictional Court for necessary permission. In view of these subsequent events, the Court (Soumen Sen, J. and Smita Das De, J.) did not go into the merits of the perempt order, which had become infructuous, and on the undertaking that the shebaits would apply to the Jurisdictional Court for permission to enter into the development agreement, disposed of the appeal and the application, with no order as to costs.

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.

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.

It is submitted that three shebaits in a meeting held on 1^st 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.

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

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.

Accordingly, the appeal and the application are disposed of.

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