AD -38 Ct No.16 17.12.2025 (SSS) SAT 254 of 2022 with CAN 1 of 2025 Shree Shree Radha Krishna Jew Thakur and Thakurani Vs. Manik Kundu, since deceased, Smt. Minati Kundu and Anr. Mr. Saurabh Guhathakurata, Mr. Abhratanu Sarkar ….For the appellant. 1. In view of sufficient cause having been shown for the failure of the appellant to move the matter on November 11, 2025, CAN 1 of 2025 is allowed, thereby recalling the order dated November 11, 2025 and restoring SAT 254 of 2022 to its original file and number. 2. The appeal is now taken up for hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The present second appeal has been preferred against a judgment of affirmance, whereby both the courts below dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant, inter alia for declaration that the defendant is a trespasser and unauthorized occupant regarding a portion of the subject property and seeking eviction of such alleged trespasser from the said portion. 4. Admittedly, the subject property belongs to a deity by virtue of an Arpannama. 5. Both the plaintiffs, acting in the name of the deity, as well as the defendant, are shebaits of the appellant-deity. 6. The suit was instituted on the strength of a purported solenama entered into between the parties whereby they agreed to specific portions of the property being allocated to them respectively. 7. However, it is well-settled that the properties of a deity cannot be demarcated or partitioned at the behest of the shebaits, since the shebaits are not the owners of the property but merely act as the limbs of the deity. 8. Hence, any solenama, even if entered into by the shebaits in respect of immovable property belonging to the deity, thereby demarcating/partitioning such property, is void in the eye of law. 9. Thus, the suit itself was not maintainable in law and in its present form. 10. Even otherwise, as rightly observed by the courts below, one/some of the shebaits cannot sue another shebait by seeking a declaration that the other shebait is a trespasser, since all shebaits of a deity in respect of a Debuttar property stand on equal footing and one does not have better title over the other. 2 11. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below. Moreover, there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. 12. Accordingly, SAT 254 of 2022 is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Parties shall act on the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from the official website of this court. (Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Supratim Bhattacharya, J.) 3