Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Its (idol's) interests are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who is in law its manager with all the powers which would in such circumstances on analogy be given to the manager of the estate of an infant heir : Pramatha Nath v. Pradyumna Kumar .

15. "The manager of the estate of an infant heir" apparently means the legal guardian of an infant. The powers of the legal guardian of an infant include the power to sue on behalf of the infant. The shebait of a Hindu idol is its manager in law. On the analogy of the power of the legal guardian of an infant the shebait of a Hindu idol has the right to sue on behalf of the idol, for the protection of its interests. In this sense it may be said as was said by the Judicial Committee in Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Hemanta Kumari Debi ('04) 32 Cal. 129 that the right of suit vests in the shebait. It has been Held by this Court that a suit for a declaration that illegal alienations of private debutter properties by a shebait are invalid is maintainable at the instance of a prospective shebait, Girish Chandra v. Upendra Nath , or any member of the founder's family who is entitled to worship the idol: Panchkari Roy v. Amode Lal Burman , Sashi Kumari Devi v. Dhirendra Kishore Roy and Nirmal Chandra v. Jyoti Prosad .

47. Before proceeding further, it would be advisable to keep in mind that as the rule of law now stands there are several distinct rights of suit in respect of the endowed property, viz., (1) the idol itself as a juristic person has the right of suit like all other owners ; (2) the shebait, the recognized human agency through which the idol must, from its very nature, act, has a distinct right, distinct from, and, in normal cases, in supersession of the idol's right of suit Jagindindra Nath Roy v. Hemanta Kumari Debi ('4) 32 Cal. 129; (3) the prospective shebaits as persons interested in the endowment have a right of suit; (4) worshippers and members of the family have right of suit. The question before us is not who else can sue in his own right but who else, other than a shebait, can represent the idol when the suit is in enforcement of the idol's right of suit. Ordinarily the shebaits alone will have the right to represent the idol. In special cases the Court may appoint some one to represent it. The rules of law that can be gathered from the decided cases in this respect appear to be--(1) that normally a shebait alone can represent an idol in a suit or proceeding; (a) that where there are several shebaits, the entire body of them will represent the idol; (b) that under some special circumstances even a co-shebait can represent the idol; Nirmal Chandra v. Jyoti Prosad that it is only under some special circumstance that the idol may be represented by (a) a prospective shebait; (b) a worshipper or any person interested in the endowment; (3) that when persons other than the shebaits come to represent the idol, they can represent the idol only by an appointment by the Court.

60. While considering whether the possession of two joint shebaits became adverse to the idol when they openly claimed to divide the property between them, Sir George Rankin observed that "until the shebait was removed or controlled by the Court, he alone could act for the idol." This case is also an authority for saying that at least in the Limitation Act the provisions in the Act as to lunatics and minors were not intended to be extended to idols. In Gopal Sridhar Mahadev v. Sasibhusan Sarkar the analogy of minority of deities was declared to be a pure fiction for which no authority was to be found in Hindu law, and it was held that there was no conceivable principle on which on such analogy a contract otherwise good and valid could be taken out of the class of contract of which specific performance might be granted under the law. The position may be summed up as follows: (1) (a) The idol is a juristic person and as such it may sue and be sued; (b) from its very nature it must act through some human agency--shebait is such agency. Until the shebait is removed or controlled by the Court he alone can act for the idol. (2) Apart from the idol's right of suit, a shebait as such has a right of suit and may be sued. Normally he is the human agency through which the idol holds, enjoys, and manages the property and the right of suit vests in him and not in the idol: Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Hemanta Kumari Debi ('04) 32 Cal. 129. (3) Worshippers and members of the family have interest in the debuttar and a right of suit is given to them also to protect the interest of the debutter. (a) This does not mean that these persons can as of right represent the deity in a legal proceeding, (b) They can sue in their own name and on their own behalf for the benefit of the debutter. (4) In exceptional circumstances, a deity can be represented in a legal proceeding by a person other than a shebait only by the special appointment of the Court: Pramathanath v. Pradyumna Kumar ; Kanhaya Lal v. Hamid Ali . (a) In such a case such person may be under the control of the Court in the manner in which and to the extent to which a next friend or a guardian of a minor is under such control under the provisions of Order 32, Civil P.C. In my judgment the Suit No. 196 of 1933 was not a suit of the idol. The person who purported to represent the idol as its next friend was not the person entitled in law so to represent the idol, and she was never appointed by the Court so to represent the idol. At best it was a suit by Anupama in her own right as a worshipper and as such its result would not in the least affect the present suit.

There is no doubt that an idol may be regarded as a juridical person capable as such of holding property though it is only in an ideal sense that property is so held....The possession and management of the dedicated properties belong to the shebait and this carries with it the right to bring whatever suits are necessary for the protection of the property. Every such right of suit is vested in the shebait, not in the idol.
70. It may be noticed that in this case the suit was not by the idol represented by its shebait but by the shebait himself as shebait in enforcement of his right as shebait. The right to sue accrued, to the plaintiff when he was under age and this saved the limitation. In Masjid Shahidganj v. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar their Lordships of the Judicial Committee observed that the procedure in India takes account necessarily of the polytheistic and other features of the Hindu religion and recognises certain doctrines of Hindu law as essential thereto, e.g., that an idol may be the owner of property. The procedure of our Courts allows for a suit in the name of an idol or deity though the right of suit is really in the shebait: Nath Roy v. Hemanta Kumari Debi ('04) 32 Cal. 129. In Prosunno Kumari Debya v. Golap Chand Babu ('74) 2 I.A. 145 it was observed: