Gopal Chandra Chakrabarty vs Radharaman Das Babaji

The decision of this appeal depends upon the proper construction of the document, Exhibit I, and of the words shishya shishanukrame, that is to say, disciple following after disciple, in that document. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the maker of the endowment intended that one disciple should be succeeded by his own disciple, and not by a brother disciple of the previous shebait. That, however, does not seem to be the proper construction of the document. The words should be construed like the words puttra puttradikrame in other deeds; and, if we do so, it does not matter, so long as one disciple of a shebait succeeds another disciple in the line of the original shebait. In this case Sri-nibash was a disciple of Nobin, and he succeeded Adyaita, another disciple of Nobin. Succession, therefore, was in accordance with the intention of the endowment. This being decided, the findings of the lower Appellate Court upon the questions of fact arising in the case dispose of the appeal, and it is, therefore, dismissed with costs.