Paramananda Das Babaji vs Eanai Das Babaji

Das Gupta J.

The dispute in this case is over the shebaitship of a debattar. The debattar was created by Brindabandas Babajee by an arpannama, which has been marked as an exhibit in this case. By this arpannama Brindabandas Babajee appointed himself as the first shebait and appointed Sundaranandadas Babajee as the next shebait. As regards the appointments of shebaits after Sundarananda, he gave the following directions in the arpannama. As the exact meaning of the Bengali words will require careful consideration in this matter, it is necessary to set out those words fully:

Sundarananda continued as shebait till his death. After his death, dispute arose as regards the possession of the properties, and proceedings u/s 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started. A receiver was appointed by the criminal court and finally Paramanandadas Babajee was held by the criminal court to be in possession. In the present suit, which was brought thereafter, the case is that, shortly before Sundarananda''s death, he appointed Kanaidas Babajee as the shebait, that this was a valid appointment and Paramananda had no right to be in possession of the properties. The main prayers are that Kanaidas Babajee should be declared to be the shebait, that a scheme should be framed for the proper Debsheba and the protection of the debattar estate and that the receiver, who had been appointed by the criminal court, should be directed to make over possession to Kanaidas Babajee, the rightful shebait. There was an alternative prayer that if it was held that there was no valid appointment of Kanaidas Babajee by Sundaranandadas Babajee, Kanaidas Babajee should be appointed the shebait of the debattar properties.

We are no longer concerned with an objection that was taken u/s 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the finding of the courts below that it was a private debattar was not disputed before us. The Defendants contested the fact of appointment of Kanaidas Babajee by Sundarananda and next contended that, even if there was an appointment, it was not a valid appointment. The trial court rejected both these contentions and held that, as there was a bona fide appointment by Sundarananda, the court was not entitled to go into the question of the validity of the appointment, and gave a decree declaring Kanaidas Babajee to be the rightful shebait and directing the receiver to make over possession to Kanaidas Babajee. The learned Subordinate Judge, who heard the appeal, was of opinion that Kanaidas Babajee was, in fact, appointed by Sundarananda, but it was open and proper to the court to consider and decide whether the appointment was made in accordance with the arpannama. According to him-

The appointee must answer the description laid down in the arpannama, i.e., he must be one in the line of disciple of Brindaban and Sundarananda, must be a Baishnav following the cult of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, must be a man cultivating morality and piety, and must be a udashin.

The conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge was that Kanaidas Babajee was, in fact, a disciple of Brindabandas Babajee, though not of Sundarananda, that he was a Baishnav following the cult of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and that there could be no objection to his appointment as shebait on the ground that he was not saddcharsampanna and held that he was udashin attaching to the word the meaning that he was a person without attachment for property. He came to the conclusion, on those facts, that the appointment of Kanaidas Babajee made by Sundarananda was in accordance with all the conditions laid down in the arpannama and that he was validly appointed as shebait. In this view, he dismissed the appeal.

It has been contended before us in this appeal by two of the Defendants that there was no evidence before the court below to justify the finding of fact that there was in fact an appointment of Kanaidas Babajee by Sundarananda and, secondly, that, in any case, the court of appeal below was wrong in holding that the conditions as laid down in the arpannama were satisfied.

As regards the first ground, Mr. Hiralal Chakravarti who argued the case for the Appellants, conceded, when the evidence on the record was pointed out, that there was sufficient evidence on the record, which, if believed, does justify a finding of the actual fact of appointment. The finding of fact that Kanaidas Babajee was, in fact, appointed shebait by Sundarananda must, therefore, be considered to be a final finding of fact which is binding on us in Second Appeal.

It was strongly contended by him, however, that the conditions of the appointment as laid down in the arpannama were not satisfied.

Dr. Sen Gupta, who appeared for the Respondent, did not dispute the proposition that it was open to the court to go into the question whether the conditions had been satisfied and did not try to support the view of the trial court that, so long as the appointment was made bond fide, Sundarananda had unfettered discretion to appoint whomsoever he thought fit.

It is necessary, therefore, for us to see what conditions are, in fact, laid down in the arpannama. As indicated above, the court of appeal below is of opinion that there are four conditions: (i) that the appointee must be one in the line of disciple of Brindaban and "Sundarananda; (ii) that he must be a Baishnav. following the cult of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu; (iii) that he must be a man cultivating morality and piety, and (iv) that he must be a udashin. It is obvious that the conclusion that, in order to he eligible for appointment as shebait, a person must he one in the line of disciple of Brindaban and Sundarananda is based on an interpretation of the words Leaving this question out of consideration for the present, it is clear that the person must satisfy the conditions contained in the

following description:

That Kanaidas Babajee is a Baishnav has not been disputed.

The case in the written statement was that he was not a sampradyik Baishnav, but it was not disputed that he was, in fact, a Baishnav. It is also not disputed that his Baishnavism is in accordance with the cult of Baishnavism introduced by Sreemat Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

There remains for consideration the two words saddcharsampanna and udashin. It seems to me clear that the word sampradayik Baishnav, but it was not disputed that he was, in word as of good conduct or morals. It is important to notice that the word sadachdrsampanna is qualified by the words I On the ordinary grammatical construction the word coming after those words, clearly means that the person must perform all the rites that are considered as proper according to the cult of Sreemat Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. In other words, the word sadachar is not the ordinary sadachar of a good, kind and pious man, but the sadachar which is laid down by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in his baishnavism. There is nothing in the evidence to indicate that Kanaidas Babajee does not satisfy that test. Comment was made by Mr. Chakravarti on the fact that this Kanaidas Babajee holds an excise license and that he has also a gun license, under which he keeps a gun in his possession. I am unable to agree that these acts constitute a breach of the sadachar as laid down in the Baishnav religion according to the cult of Srimat Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

Mr. Chakravarti, however, launched his main attack, in this part of the case, on the word udashin. According to him, Kanaidas Babajee can never be considered to be a udashin in view of the fact that he has properties, he has an excise shop, he keeps a gun, and last, but not the least, he has a wife with whom he has declared his readiness to live. This declaration was apparently made in the proceedings for maintenance u/s 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

For a proper conclusion of this question, it is necessary to understand what is meant by the word udashin. The ordinary meaning of the word udashin as used in Bengali conversation and secular literature is indifferent. Very often the word is used in the more limited sense of indifference to worldly wealth and pleasures. I find it difficult to believe that this was the meaning attached to the word in this arpannama. If that was the meaning intended to be attached, I would have expected the word udashin to appear not between the words and but separately. For the reasons, for which I have formed the opinion, that the word sad�ch�rsampanna has reference to the words I am of opinion that the word ud�shin has reference to the word Baishnav dharm�nus�rey. What was required was that he must be a ud�shin in accordance with the Baishnav dharma as introduced by Chaitanya Mah�prabhu. Should a special meaning be attached to the word ud�shin, because of the words Baishnav dharm�nus�rey? In my opinion, this must be so. The Chalantika by Raj Sekhar Basu, which is a well-known, dictionary, has given one of the meanings of the word ud�shi as sannyasi. That this is not an uncommon and novel use of the word appears clear from Wilson''s Glossary. Wilson has given the meaning of two words ud�shi and ud�shin and has mentioned, in connection with the word ud�shin, that it is very often confounded with the word ud�shi. It is reasonable to hold that in Wilson''s opinion, the words ud�shi and ud�shin are used indiscriminately. One of the meanings of the word ud�shi given by Wilson in his Glossary is "a religious "mendicant".

It is important to notice in this connection that it is clear from he evidence that a distinction between the Baishnavs who have renounced the world, and the Baishnavs who have not, is clearly recognised. Paramananda has, in his evidence, stated that he was formerly a grihi and then he became a tyagi. We have also to remember the well-known practice in Baishnavism of taking what is called bhek. Bhek is derived from the Sanskrit word bhikha (vide "Chalantika"), while one meaning of the word is "disguise". The original meaning is a kind of sannyas. The Baishnav, who takes bhek, becomes a sannyasi and has, thereafter, to earn his livelihood on bhikha or, more often, described as mddhukari. Having regard to all these well-known practices of Baishnavism,-practices which must have been well known to Brindaban when he created the endowment-I think it reasonable to hold that he used the word udashin in the arpannama not in the ordinary sense of the word, but in the special sense of a person who has taken bhek.

It is important to notice that it is not disputed that Kanaidas Babajee had taken bhek. In fact, in the second paragraph of the written statement filed by Defendant No. 1, Paramananda, it has been stated that Kanaidas was initiated into bhek from Gadadhardas.

My conclusion, therefore, is that all the conditions implied in the description were satisfied.

There remains for consideration the argument based on the use of the word As already indicated, the learned court of appeal below thought that these words made it a condition of eligibility for appointment as shebait that the person "must be one in the line of disciple of Brindaban and "Sundarananda". Mr. Chakravarti argued that a proper interpretation of these words meant that he must be one in the line of disciple of Sundarananda and the fact that he was in fact a disciple of Brindaban would not be sufficient.

Mr. Chakravarti, in the second place, contended that, even if it was sufficient for the eligibility for appointment as s shebait that the person was a disciple of Brindabon, the wore sisya has been used in a special sense and the finding of the court of appeal below, that a person is a sisya, though of another siksha-guru, is not correct.

In my judgment, it is not necessary for the purposes of this case to go into the consideration of the question, whether the person has to be a sisya of both Brindaban and Sundarananda or a person can be said to be a sisya of his siksha-guru. For, in my judgment, the word sisyaganakramey has no reference to the person who has to be appointed. My first reason is that the meaning which the learned court below has attached and which Mr. Chakravarti aicn thinks should be attached to the word sisyaganakramey as laying down a condition that the appointment has to be made from among the disciples, wholly ignores the connotation of the word krarmey. I fail to see how the word sisyaganakramey can mean "from among the disciples". Kramey indicates an order. It is absurd to think that Sundarananda meant that first one disciple will be appointed and then another disciple will be appointed. The word gana also seems to be meaningless if the word sisyaganakramey is said to have reference to the person who has to be appointed. It is important also to notice that if the appointment was, according to the word sisyaganakramey, to be made from among the disciples, whether of Sundarananda or of Brindaban, there would be no necessity of using the words for, obviously the sisya would be a Baishnav and that in accordance with the cult of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

It has to be noticed further that if the word sisyaganakramey is to be interpreted in the way that found favour with the court of appeal below, the arpannama must be held to contain no direction as regards further appointments to shebaitship after the shebaitship of the person appointed by Sundarananda expires.

The nearest literal translation, that I can think of the word sisyaganakramey, is "disciples after disciples". As I read this passage, it can only mean this that Sundarananda was given the right and duty to appoint a shebait after him and the word sisyaganakramey was used by Brindaban to indicate the persons who would make the appointments thereafter.

I am not unconscious of the difficulties that might arise in putting into actual operation a direction that disciples as a body would form a kind of electoral college, who would make the appointment, but this being, in my opinion, the necessary meaning of the words used, there is no way of escaping that difficulty.

That difficulty is not, however, of any importance to our present problem. It is the common case of both parties that Sundarananda was personally entitled in law to make the appointment. The dispute on this part of the case is whether his choice was restricted to "disciples."

For the reasons given above, I am of opinion that it was not so restricted and that the only conditions of eligibility to an appointment by Sundarananda are contained in the passage.

I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the courts below were rightly of opinion that the appointment of Kanaidas Babajee was a valid appointment.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Bachawat J.

I entirely agree and I have only a very few words to add. In the context udashin must mean here a "person who has "taken bhek or sannyas according to the cult of Baishnavism "propounded by Shri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Such sannydsis-"are not ascetics." They do not renounce the world completely. They are known as bairagis or udashis. "With regard to bairagis, in a case decided in the year 1864, Teeluk Chunder v. Shama Churn Prokash (1864) 1 W.R. 209, a Bench of this Court said thus:

The special Respondents are not ascetics, who have given up all wordly cares and transactions. They still buy and sell, marry and have children. They have not left the "household order". See p. 300, Vivada Chintamone.

I have no doubt, therefore, that the Respondent Kanaidas Babajee is a person who is sadacharsampanna udashin Baishnab although he has a wife and although he has an excise license and an excise shop. He married before he took bhek. He is a sunrhi by caste and he took the excise license before he became a bairagi.

I also entirely agree that the word sisyaganakranney cannot qualify the word baishnab. It is not necessary to go any further, and to decide any other question. I am quite clearly of the opinion that the word sisyaganakramey is not meant to be a restriction or fetter on the choice of Sundarananda with regard to the selection of a shebait.