D/L.11. February 5, 2025. MNS. SAT No. 479 of 2018 + CAN 1 of 2019 (Old CAN 1496 of 2019) Deity Shib Thakur of Village Adampur represented by Kshudiram Raha and others Vs. Banshi Badan Moitra and others Mr. Chittaranjan Chakraborty, Mr. Sumit Banerjee Md. Anisur Rahman, Ms. Puspa Rani Jaiswara … for the appellants. Mr. Bidyut Baran Biswas, Mr. Alak Chakraborty …for the respondents. 1. The present Second Appeal has been preferred at the behest of one Adampur Barowari Shivpuja Samity, claiming to be the devotees of the plaintiff deity, namely, Shib Thakur of Village - Adampur. 2. By his judgment and decree, the learned Trial Judge partially decreed the suit, directing the defendant to hand over the deity Shiva to its temple within thirty days from the date of the decree. 3. However, on all other issues, the findings of the learned Trial Judge went against the appellant. In particular, it was held by the learned Trial Judge, while deciding Issue No. 4, that no cause of action for filing the suit has been made out by the plaintiff. 4. The learned Appellate Judge, while dealing with the findings of the learned Trial Judge, came to the 2 additional finding that the plaintiff/appellant, Adampur Baroari Shivpuja Samity, has failed to establish its locus standi to file the suit, having no right, title and/or interest in the suit property. A document, which was marked as Exhibit – 7, was purportedly an ‘Arpannama’ executed not at the time of installation of the deity, but subsequently on December 9, 1974. Moreover, the said document was in the name of one Adampur Shivpuja Committee. 5. Although the plaintiffs/appellants claim that the said Committee was subsequently converted to Adampur Barowari Shivpuja Samity, which is represented by the present appellants, the specific finding of the learned Appellate Judge is that there was nothing produced by the plaintiffs to establish such fact. 6. Thus, in the absence of any locus standi and/or cause of action of the plaintiffs/appellants to institute the suit, the learned Appellate Judge, in our opinion, correctly set aside the limited decree passed by the learned Trial Judge and dismissed the suit as a whole. 7. We, sitting in second appeal, find that it is beyond all norms and principles of law to substitute our own view even if it was possible, for those of the courts below, since the findings of the learned trial Judge and the learned Appellate Judge, apart from 3 the limited decree granted by the learned Trial Jude in the court below, corroborate each other and as such, form concurrent findings of fact. 8. We do not find any substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal as such and accordingly, SAT 479 of 2018 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. The connected application, bearing CAN 1 of 2019 (Old CAN 1496 of 2019), is accordingly dismissed as well. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. The records be sent down for effecting the necessary corrections as per the report of the Additional Stamp Reporter immediately. (Uday Kumar, J.) (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)