Harish Tandon, J.This revisional application is directed against an order No. 27 dated April 25, 2005 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sealdah in Title Suit No. 18 of 2003 by which an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is rejected.

2. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed Title Suit No. 18 of 2003 praying a decree for declaration that the construction of a deed of dedication dated April 22, 1955 by which the line of succession for the shebaitship was made and a further decree for framing of scheme of management for proper performance of the daily seba puja, periodical festivals of the Deities and stable management, control and administration of the Debutter estates.

3. The plaint case proceeds on the basis that the matter in dispute relates to a private debutter created and established by one Hem Chandra Naskar and Jogendra Nath Naskar being the sons of Ramkrishna Naskar by deed of Arpannama executed on April 22, 1955. The said Hemchandra and Jogendra Nath endowed, dedicated and bequeathed some of their properties to two Hindu deities established and installed at Premises No. 72, Beliaghata Main Road, Kolkata- 700010. In the said deed, the aforesaid two settlers appointed themselves as joint shebaits with further stipulation that on the death of any of them, the survivor would act as a sole shebait. After the death of the settlers, the eldest male member of the Jogendra Nath would act as a sole shebait and upon his death, the next eldest of the surviving male heirs of the Jogendra Nath would act as a sole shebait. Both the settlers died on November 13, 1969 and May 26, 1977 respectively. On the death and in terms of the line of succession, the eldest son of the Jogendra Nath namely Ardhendu Sekhar Naskar became the sole shebait who also died on January 20, 1999 and, thereafter, the second son of the said Jogendra Nath, that is, Nabendu Sekhar Naskar became the sole shebait of the said debutter. On the death of the Nabendu Sekhar on October 2, 2000, the fourth son of the Jogendra Nath namely Amalendu Sekhar Naskar became the sole shebait as the third son namely Purnendu Sekhar Naskar pre-deceased him.

4. The aforesaid facts are more or less undisputed and both the parties have founded their claims on such admitted facts. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed the Title Suit No. 18 of 2003 basically for framing of scheme of management for proper performance, administration of the said debutter on the allegation that the last surviving son of the Jogendra Nath being the septuagenarian and unable to perform the daily seba puja as well as the proper management and administration of the various debutter properties. It is further stated in the plaint that by virtue of another deed of endowment, certain other properties belonging to the same family was also dedicated to the deities and a suit in the Original Side of High Court at Calcutta was filed for framing of scheme for proper management and administration thereof, and the said suit had been decreed by framing a scheme in which one member each from the family of five sons of the Jogendra Nath were appointed as shebaits and, therefore, the similar scheme should be framed in the instant suit so that each sons of the Jogendra Nath can be represented.

5. The said suit is being contested by some of the defendants by delivering a defence upon filing the written statements.

6. Subsequently, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners praying for an order of appointment of interim/temporary committee of five members of the shebaits chosen or nominated by each family of the five sons of the said Jogendra Nath for due performance of the daily sheba puja and periodical festivals and for proper management, control, administration, protection and preservation of the Debuttor estates till the disposal of the suit.

7. The allegations which led to the filing of the said application is particularized in Paragraph 18 thereof, and on meaningful reading, it could be deciphered, that the allegations are made against the said Amalendu Sekhar Naskar who is acting in collusion with the defendant No. 3, Ashoke Naskar in inducting unauthorised persons and occupants in the major portion of the debutter properties after taking huge sums and dissipating the estate of the debutter by such illegal and wrongful acts. The written objection Proceed on the basis that the plaintiffs are colliding with the defendant No. 1 and have been using and utilizing the income of the debutter for their personal use. It is specifically contended that Nabendu Sekhar Naskar during his tenure inducted several subtenants in respect of 20 cottahs of the vacant land at Premises No. 73 A, Beliaghata Main Road with further right to raise construction for commercial purposes at the monthly rental of Rs. 1200/- according to English calendar. The said Sourjya Sekhar Naskar in consequence to the said right granted to him raised construction and inducted several sub-tenants and, therefore, the aforesaid allegation contained in the said application is false and have no semblance of truth in it.

8. The Trial Court dismissed the said application as it did not find any convincing documentary evidences in support of the aforesaid allegations. It is further held that the line of succession laid down in the said deed of Arpannama cannot be held to be against the rule of perpetuity. The said order is assailed by the plaintiffs in this revisional application.

9. At the time of admitting the revisional application, the opposite party No. 5 who is arraigned as defendant No. 3 in the plaint was restrained by an order of injunction from transferring or alienating or encumbering or creating any third party interest in the property in question during the pendency of the revisional application.

10. Admittedly, between the period from the date of an order by which an application under Section 151 of the Code is rejected and filing of the revisional application, the said Amelendu Shekhar died on July 3, 2005. Several applications are taken out in the revisional application for interim reliefs. However, at the time of hearing, the parties agreed to address this Court on the main revisional application and they decided not to proceed with the interlocutory application filed in the instant revisional application.

11. Mr. Mainak Bose, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the line of succession made in the deed of Arpannama by the settler is opposed to the well-known concept of Hindu Law. He further submits that although, the final relief claimed in the plaint is yet to be decided but the Court can make an interim provision in aid of the final relief. He audaciously submits that after the death of the original defendant No. 1, the last recognized shebait under the said deed of Arpannama, the property is in medio and, therefore, some interim measures should be taken so that the property comprised in the debutter estate is managed, administered, protected and preserved. He submits that the shebaitship is a property distinct from the trusteeship and, therefore, it would succeed under the well-established legal principal of Hindu Law. He further submits that all other heirs of the said five sons excepting the opposite No. 5, the original defendant No. 3, is opposing the framing of a new scheme as he is indulged in various misdeeds by encumbering, transferring and creating a third party interest in the debutter property. In support of his contentions that if the founder of the Hindu Debutter while laying down the line of succession to the office of shebait to the exclusion of the others differing from the line of Hindu inheritance, it is liable to be struck down and placed reliance upon a full bench judgment of this Court in case of Monohar Mukherjee Vs. Bhupendra Nath Mukherjee and Others and a judgment of the Privy Council in case of Ganesh Chunder Dhur vs. Lal Behary Dhur and OthersAIR 1936 318 (Privy Council) . He further placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Rambir Das and Another Vs. Kalyan Das and Another, (1997) 3 JT 356 : (1997) 2 SCALE 499 [LQ/SC/1997/302] : (1997) 4 SCC 102 [LQ/SC/1997/302] : (1997) 2 SCR 210 [LQ/SC/1997/302] for the proposition that the shebaitship being the property divorced from any other property comprised in the Trust and, therefore, putting restrictions by way of a devolution on one of the heirs to the exclusion of other is not legal.

12. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 5 vehemently submits that the instant application is in effect an application for appointment of receiver and, therefore, the revisional application is incompetent. He further submits that there is no allegation against his client in an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which is restricted against the original defendant No. 1 who by this time is no longer surviving and, therefore, this revisional application has become infructuous. He, however, submits that the reference to other debutter created by the successor of the parties cannot have any binding effect in this suit.

13. Mr. Chatterjee succinctly submits that by laying down the line of succession, the founder has not created the some in perpetuity, which is unknown to Hindu Law and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Privy Council in case of Sookhmoy Chunder Dass and Another vs. Srimati Monohurri(1885) L.R. 12 I.A. 103 (Privy Council) and in case of Raikishori Dasi and anr. -vs- Debendranath Sircar and ors. reported in 15 IA 37 . The office of the shebaitship would devolve in accordance with the mode of devolution laid down by the founder of the debutter as the same is hereditary one. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Anath Bandhu De Vs. Krishna Lal Das and Others, AIR 1979 Cal 168 [LQ/CalHC/1978/468] : (1978) 1 CALLT 42 : 83 CWN 125 [LQ/CalHC/1978/468] : (1978) 2 ILR (Cal) 412 .

14. Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 20, however, adopts the submissions of Mr. Bose, and additionally submits that his client has filed the supporting affidavit wherein the various illegal activities of the opposite party No. 5 is elucidated which leaves no manner of doubt that he cannot act as a sole shebait and the debutter should not be kept in his hands.

15. In reply to the submissions of Mr. Chatterjee, Mr. Bose further submits that there is no sufficient and convincing allegation against the opposite party No. 5 in the said application under Section 151 of the Code and, even if, the original defendant No. 1 died, the application under Section 151 of the Code is very much alive and there is no impediment on the part of the Court to decide the revisional application. He further submits that the property is in medio and it would be appropriate and proper to provide an interim measure for protection and preservation of the properties involved in the debutter estate.

16. Having considered the respective submissions, it is undisputed that a suit for framing a scheme for management, administration, protection and preservation of the debutter estate is still pending. Apart from the other prayer, one of the prayer made therein relates to decree for constituty five members committee of the shebait, to which one member chosen or nominated from each family of the Jogendra Naths five sons for the purpose of better administration, control and management of the debutter estate. The plaint case simply proceeds on the incapacitation of the last recognized shebait because of his age and ill-health. The application under Section 151 of the Code contains the similar prayer as made in prayer (c) to the plaint. The relevant paragraph therein is 18 wherein there is a specific allegations made against the opposite party No. 5 to have inducted unauthorized persons and occupants in the major portion of the Premises No. 73 A, and 73 B, Beliaghata Main Road in collusion with the original defendant No. 1 who by this time is not surviving. Therefore, it cannot be said at this juncture that the said application was restricted to the deceased defendant No. 1 only. This Court further finds that by way of an interim order, the opposite party No. 5 is restrained from encumbering, transferring and inducting the third parties in the property in question in this revisional application.

17. An elaborate arguments have been advanced on the genesis of the shebaitship which is distinct from the trusteeship. The shebaitship is a blending of right of inheritance and holding of an office. Since the matter framing a scheme is pending before the Trial Court, it would not be proper to delve into those questions which would have repercussion on the ultimate decision to be taken in the suit. The subject matter of this revisional application is an order by which an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in the said suit is disposed of. The inherent power conferred under the said section can be pressed in action ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone it exist or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

18. It is dependent upon the facts of each case and to be exercised to protect the rights of the litigants pending final adjudication in the suit. The power under Section 151 is very wide and cannot be circumscribed by limitations but the Court should be careful in guarding its limit. The allegation as deciphered from the averments made therein is that the opposite party No. 5 is trying to induct unauthorised persons or occupants in several properties comprised in the said Arpannama and a suitable order is sought to protect such illegal acts by taking recourse to Section 151 of the Code.

19. As indicated above, one of the reliefs claimed in the plaint is being prayed by way of an interim order under Section 151 of the Code and it is undeniable that the suit has not reached to its ultimate decision. There is already a subsisting order of injunction restraining the opposite party No. 5 from encumbering, transferring and/or inducting a third party in the property in question passed in this revisional application.

20. This Court feels that the said order would sufficiently take care of the anxiety of the petitioner. The interim order, therefore, passed in this revisional application, if allowed to continue till the disposal of the suit, can sufficiently take care of the allegation and shall give adequate protection against the creation of a third party interest in respect of the suit property by the opposite party No. 5.

21. This Court, therefore, restrained the opposite party No. 5 from encumbering, transferring and/or inducting a third party as well as from changing the nature and character of the principles in question till the disposal of the suit.

22. The revisional application is thus disposed of.

23. In view of the disposal of revisional application, the connected applications are, accordingly, disposed of.

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

25. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.