Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

At page 227, it is Stated thus :

"As there is always an ultimate reversion to the founder or his heirs, in case the line of Shebaits is extinct, strictly speaking no question of escheat arises so far as the devolution of shebaitship is concerned. But cases may be imagined where the founder also has left no heirs, and in such cases the founder's properties may escheat to the State together with the endowed property. In circumstance like these, the lights of the State would possibly be the same as those of the founder himself, and it would be for it to appoint a shebait for the Debutter property. It cannot be said that the State receiving a dedicated property but escheat can put an end to the trust and treat it as secular property".

The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are shebaits or sarbarkars of the temple Sri Thakur Jugal Kishorji Maharaj Birajman Mandir (Marhi) in town Khair and its debutter property as shown in schedule 'B' of the plaint and for possession over the said property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the plaintiffs possession over the said property. The defendants are given one month's time to deliver vacant possession of the disputed property to the plaintiffs failing which the plaintiffs would be entitled to get possession through court.

On appeal, the appellate Court recorded the finding thus :

Hari Dass, the original founder of the trust had not specified any direction in there was deed of 1.4.20 with regard to future Shebait-ship or Sarbarakarship after the death of the four chelas nominated by him. The four chelas were also not given any authority to nominate future shebaits or sarbarkars after their death and as such the office of Shebaitship of Sarbakarship devolved on the plaintiffs as sons of Ram Dass and Bansi Dass though they were also the disciples of Bansi Dass. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were minors and as such they could neither act as chelas of Bansi Dass nor could entitle themselves to act as Shebaits or sarbarkars in law on any account and the directions given in the adoption deed dated 6.6.66 were illegal and void ab initio Defendants 4 and 4 had got fraudulent and fictitious entries made in Revenue papers in their favour in collusion with lekhpal as sub-tenant over certain area of the temple land though they had not interest or title at all and as such Hoti Lal and Kishore Lal, the respective fathers and guar-dians of the defendants 1 and 2 had not right to claim the property against the interests of the deity". It would, thus, be seen that there is no controversy as to whether Rambir Dass became entitled to succeed the temple as shebait as could be seen from the evidence; in the light of the above legal position, Hari Dass had not laid down any line of succession to his chelas to administer the debutter estate of the temple. He left behind him four chelas and admit-tedly one of the chelas, Ram Dass, had married. The appellant and his brother, are the progenies of Ram Dass. Bansi Dass, the last chela had executed a Will under which he nominated Rambir Dass and his brother as Shebait. Admittedly, he did not reserve any right to cancel their nomina-tion in the Will. He cancelled the Will while executing an Adoption Deed in favour of the defendants. The question is : whether he had the com-petence to cancel the Will having duly nominated the appellant and his brother as Shebaits? Since the brother of the appellant became insane, it is not necessary to go into the question whether he would succeed after Rambir Dass. The Will in the normal connotation, takes effect after the demise of the testator. But in the case of nomination of a shebait, the nomination takes effect from the date of its execution though it is styled as a Will. Once it takes effect, the nominee becomes entitled to go into the office as a shebait after the demise of the last chela of Hari Dass. Under these circumstances, the shebaitship being a property, vests in Rambir Dass and he could administer the property and manage the temple for the purpose of spiritual and other purposes with which Hari Dass, the original founder had endowed the property to Lord Krishna and Radha.

The next question is : whether Bansi Dass had power to adopt defendants 1 and 2 and deprive the appellant of his right of shebaitship? Having seen that Bansi Dass did not reserve any right to cancel the nomination and that too for valid reasons, the Will became operative as soon as it was executed. Thereby, he had no more any power to cancel it and thereby the right of adoption would not be approved of by this Court as valid in law, as he is a Bairagi and he could not adopt anyone except nominating a chela who fallows the principles and precepts the founder had laid for being observed. Unfortunately, there is no plea in this behalf nor is power in that behalf. The only ground on which the cancellation came to be made was that Rambir Dass bad married and thereby he became disentitled to be a Bairagi to administer the debutter estate as a shebait. There is no pleading that a married bairagi cannot hold the property nor that he becomes a shebait to administer the debutter estate endowed to the Mandir. It is to be seen that the property stands vested in the deity, Lord Krishna and Radha and that anyone who administers the property, does so as a shebait and administers as a trustee for and on behalf of the deity. It is true that the High Court has disallowed the Will and held that neither party is entitled to shebaitship. The view taken by the High Court is dearly illegal It is not the case that the appellant was not nominated under the Will executed by Bansi Dass, in the first instance and thereby he was vested with the right to manage, as a Shebait of the debutter estate belonging to the deity, Lord Krishna and Radha. There is not plea nor proof that a married person is not entitled to be the shebait. Therefore, the view of the High Court that he became disentitled on account of the marriage is clearly illegal. A chela cannot be adopted but can be nominated. As a consequence, the adoption of defendants 1 and 2 by Bansi Dass as chelas is also not legal for the reason that they were minor as on the date when he claims to have adopted them elas. Chela nominated must be one who is independent and capable to renounce the worldly affairs or capable to adopt himself as Bairagi. He cannot adopt anyone as his successor by application of the general principles of law.