Third Party Can Institute Suit In Name Of Deity When Sebait Deprives Himself Of Power Of Representation: Calcutta High Court

The High Court was considering two writ petitions assailing the judgment of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal, both filed by one Kalyan Das, one in the name of the deity Sri Sri Dodhimohan Jew, claiming himself to be the president of a committee which is allegedly looking after the deity in the capacity of sebait, and the other in his individual capacity.

The Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya held, “Only in exceptional circumstances, where the sebait does not or by his own act, deprives himself of the power of representing the deity, a third party is competent to institute a suit in the name of the deity to protect the debottar property.”

Advocate Sounak Bhattacharyya represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Sk Md. Galib represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The writ petitioner, in its original application, sought a direction to the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to consider the petitioner's representation that his name ought to be recorded as Raiyat in respect of the disputed plots. On the other hand, the other original application was filed by the private respondents, seeking a declaration that the subject plots had not vested in the State, for a declaration that the recording of their names as Raiyats in respect of the subject plots was correct, and for relief like an injunction to protect their possession.

The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the original application filed by the writ petitioner on the ground that the writ petitioner did not have any locus standi to maintain the same. On the other hand, limited relief was granted in the original application of the private respondents, by holding on the basis of the materials before the Tribunal that the subject property had not vested in the State.

Reasoning

From the recording of the records of rights itself, the Bench noted that the deity, represented by the settlor and one of the sebaits Ram Narayan, was recorded as the Raiyat of the subject property. The user by the general public was restricted not to the usufructs of the property but only to a specific user of the water body, which is a part of the deity’s property, for the limited purpose of day-to-day use for domestic purposes. “Such right, as is clear from the extract of the records of right produced before us, is in the nature of an easement right and does not create any title or greater right than that of user in favour of the general public insofar as the debottar property is concerned”, it added.

Reference was made to the judgment in Sri Iswar Radha Kanta Jew Thakur and others vs. Gopinath Das (1960) wherein it was observed that anybody could act as next friend of a deity, but the law requires that anybody other than a sebait instituting a suit in the name of the deity must be appointed as such by the order of the court.“In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that any such appointment was made by any competent court in favour of the petitioner Kalyan Das or the committee presided over by the said writ petitioner, permitting either the said Kalyan Das or the committee to represent the deity as next friend, in the capacity of its sebait or otherwise”, the Bench added.

The Bench noted that the sebaits deprived themselves of the power of representing the deity, to entitle any third party to act as next friend of the deity, a perpetual minor in the eye of the law. The Bench was of the view that the property was in the nature of a private debottar property and not a public debottar property, which could confer any right on the general public at large, let alone a particular committee formed by a certain specific set of persons who have utterly failed to prove their locus standi, to represent the deity in the present case.

The Bench further stated, “Insofar as the other question is concerned, regarding the veracity or authenticity of the Arpananma and/or the title of the private respondents, even in that regard, we fail to understand as to how the petitioner Kalyan Das, or the committee presided over by him, acquired any right to represent the deity or has established any interest in respect of the deity.”

The Bench was of the view that the Tribunal was justified in nipping the issue in the bud, since the claim of locus standi of the petitioner Kalyan Das was frivolous.

Thus, finding no excessive exercise of jurisdiction or illegality on the part of the Tribunal in passing the impugned judgment, the Bench dismissed the petitions, thereby affirming the impugned judgment of the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal.

Cause Title: Sri Sri Dodhimohan Jew v. The State of West Bengal (Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:100-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Sounak Bhattacharyya, Sangeeta Roy, Chandra Prakash, Monalisa Maity

Respondent: Advocates Sk. Md. Galib, Abu Siddik Mallick, Kapil Guha, Ayan Banerjee, Debasree Dhamali, Riya Ghosh, Debolina Ghosh

Click here to read/download Order