Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Further it is urged that the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore, after the commencement of the Constitution of India in 1950, he continued as 'Shebait' of the said Temples over the centuries, a long usage and custom in the Royal Family had crystallised inasmuch as the Office of the Shebait devolved on the Successor Maharaja on the demise on the incumbent Shebait Maharaja. The family custom has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Angurbala v. Debabrata (2) Kalipada v. Palanibala and further the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1932 Calcutta 791 (Manohar Mukkerjee v. Bhubendranath). Wherein, the said High Court has held Shebait is a property, and further the same view has been taken in the case of Bhabatarinidebi v. Ashalata Debi reported in (1943) 70 Ind App 57 : (AIR 1943 PC 89). The Court held that Shebait is a property and it is a heritable property. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment on the question of Shebait is a heritable property. The learned Seinor Counsel would further contend that the petitioner's father and the petitioner were the members of the Hindu Undivided Family on the birth of the petitioner in the year 1953, the shebaitship devolved on his successor namely, the petitioner as his father late Maharaja was a 'Shebait' in the year 1974. Therefore, by right, petitioner has become the 'Shebait' of all the temples coming under the Palace Muzrai Institutions that has been fortified by Article IV of the 1950 Agreement. Further, the learned Senior Counsel has placed the reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Profulla Choron v. Satya Choron reported in AIR 1979 SC 1682, 1980 LablC 389, ( 1980 ) I LLJ 211 SC, ( 1979 ) 3 SCC 409, [ 1979 ] 3 SCR 431. In support of the proposition that like any other species of heritable property, where the founder does not dispose of the Shebait Rights, the Shebaitship devolves on the heirs of the founder according to Hindu law, if no usage or custom of a different nature is shown to exist and further contended that the founder either alter or revoke the appointment of Shebaitship, after it is made he becomes "functus officto" as Founder -cum-Shebait, the essence of it is that the appointment of Shebait is an intergral part of the Endowment itself. He further elaborates his submission contending that when the line of succession of Shebaits becomes extinct, there is no Escheat to Government but the Managership reverts to the Founder who endowed the property or to his heirs. Further contended that Shebait Right is not alienable or transferable according to Hindu Law, as it is inseparable from his duties as a Ministrant of the deity, and manager of its temporalities and would be quite contrary to the express intention of the founder and also to the very policy of the Hindu Law relating to Shebaitship and therefore the transfer of the same is not countenanced by Courts. In support of this proposition he has placed reliance upon the following cases :-- (1) Raja Varma v. Ravi Vurmah (1877) ILR 1 Mad 235 : (1877) 4 Ind App 76 (PC) ; (2) Avancheri v. Acholathil (1882) ILR 5 Mad 89; (3) Jagannath v. Kishen Perishad (1867) 7 Suth WR 266; (4) Kali Charan v. B. Mohan (1871) 6 Beng LR 727 and (5) Dubo Misser v. Srinivas (1870) 5 Beng LR 617 and further contents that surrender of Shebait right is void according to Hindu law. In support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the following judgments :-- (1) Nagendranath v. Ravindra (ILR Cal 132); (2) Raghunath v. Parmanand (1923) ILR 47 Bom 529 : (AIR 1923 Bom 358); (3) Profulla Choron's case AIR 1979 SC 1682, 1980 LablC 389, ( 1980 ) I LLJ 211 SC, ( 1979 ) 3 SCC 409, [ 1979 ] 3 SCR 431. The further ground of attack of the impugned order of the petitioner is that either transfer or surrender of the Shebaitship in favour of the Government is absolutely void as per the decision of the Supreme Court Judgment in Profulla Choron's case referred to supra and the other cases cited supra. The alleged surrender in favour of the Respondent-Government denied the petitioner's shebaitship is against the basic principles of Hindu Law and the same is against the spirit of Endowments made by the founder Maharaja in regard to the line of Succession. Therefore, either transfer/surrender is void and illegal.

16. For the reasons stated supra, the writ petition is liable to be rejected solely on the ground of delay and laches as the same has been filed after lapse of 24 years from the date of passing the impugned order by the first respondent.

Notwithstanding the abovesaid finding recorded on Point No. 1 against the petitioner, this Court proceeds to answer Point Nos. 2 and 3 also by giving its reasons as hereunder :

17. The petitioner has sought for declaratory relief to declare that he is a Shebait of Temples in question as he has got a hereditary right to maintain and administer the same placing reliance upon the judgments of Supreme court and Calcutta High Court which are extensively referred to at Paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Judgment. The submission of Sr. Counsel that the temples were under the control and management of Palace Department after the order at Annex-ure-C and subsequent to Annexure-C in respect of 12 temples at Annexure-C and five temples as per Annexure-E have been in the Management and Administrative control of Palace Department and in respect of 12 other temples mentioned at Annexure-D were in the control of the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore District which are the private temples as the Management and Administration was completely under the control of ancestors of petitioner's father and further erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore after commencement of Constitution in the year 1950 continued to be Shebait of said temples as the same was devolved on the successors of Maharaja. In support of the said contention, I have perused the Judgments referred to above upon which reliance placed by the learned Sr. Counsel are examined by this Court with reference to the Government Orders at Annexures C, D and E which orders would clearly go to show that they were under the control of Muzarai Department prior to the orders referred to supra and thereafter, some of the temples were transferred to Palace Department which were also controlled by erstwhile Government of Mysore, some temples were transferred to the Deputy Commissioner of Mysore District pursuant to the order at Annexure-D and the same have been under the management and administrative control of the Muzarai Department of the erstwhile Mysore Government.

18. The reliance is placed by the learned counsel upon the Judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Profulla Choron v. Satya Choron reported in AIR 1979 SC 1682, 1980 LablC 389, ( 1980 ) I LLJ 211 SC, ( 1979 ) 3 SCC 409, [ 1979 ] 3 SCR 431 in support of the claim of the petitioner that the founder of Hindu Religious Institutions does not dispose of his Shebait Rights as the same devolved upon his heirs according to Hindu Law, if no usage or custom of a different nature is shown to exist. Further contended that, right of Shebaitship is not alienable or transferable according to Hindu Law and alleged surrender of Shebaitship right in respect of the temples to the State Government is void. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court are misplaced as the ratio laid down in those cases have no application to the facts of the present case as the Government orders at Annexures C, D and E would clearly go to show that they have been under the Management and Administrative control of the Muzrai Department.