Administrator-General of Bengal and Another
Balkissen Misser and Others
Decided on May 12, 1924, [Last Heard on: 12.05.1924]
In this case, a dispute arose between parties A and B over the ownership and possession of a property named No. 55, Cotton Street, Calcutta. Party A, represented by the Administrator General of Bengal and the Official Assignee, claimed that the property had been dedicated for religious worship through a will and that party B had no legal right to it. Party B, however, argued that they lawfully possessed the property and had acquired rights over time. The court conducted a thorough analysis of historical records and legal aspects related to the property. It concluded that the property was indeed dedicated for religious purposes based on the will, transferring ownership to the idol Sham Sunderjee. Previous administrators consistently recognized this religious dedication. Despite some conflicting records, the court ruled that the property’s ownership hadn’t deviated from its original dedication. In the end, party A failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim of ownership and possession. The court ruled in favor of party B, represented by Fox & Mandal, while understanding the efforts of the Administrator General to protect the religiously dedicated property. The court dismissed the lawsuit and didn’t impose costs on party B, directing the Administrator General’s costs to be covered from the estate based on a solicitor and client arrangement.