Sukumar Bose And Ors. vs Abani Kumar Haldar And Ors. on 27 May, 1955
It will be noticed that both in the above passages setting out the criticism by the learned author and in the decision of the Calcutta High Court cited earlier in Sukumar Bose v. Abani Kumar , the question has been considered in the light of an installed idol in favour of which certain properties are dedicated, with the consequent result that the idol becoming a juristic personality acquires an absolute right to the property and it is from that perspective the question has been asked whether a trust of that description can be put an end to. We are in entire agreement with these propositions, viz., that where an idol has been installed, even if it happens to be a private family idol, and the family endows property for the upkeep of the idol and for the performance of poojas and the like, the result contemplated in the above decision must be deemed to follow, viz., that the idol as a distinct entity becomes the owner of the property and thereafter the donors the members of the family, may have no surviving power to take back the property from the idol, but the question would be, whether such a result can follow in the case of trust of the kind which we have in the case before us. In so far as the present trust contemplates setting apart of the property for guru poojas, it is undoubtedly invalid-There is no evidence of an initial foundation for the purpose of performing the mandagapadi at the mandapam. We shall presently consider whether that can be regarded as a public trust. We have already referred to the evidence that there used to be a Dhakshinamoorthi temple in which poojas have been offered to an idol of that name. The Court below has not accepted the evidence and has held that the Dhakshinamurthy referred to is really the father of Ammani Ammal, the founder of the trust, and what was contemplated was only guru pooja for that Dhakshinamurthi. In the present case, therefore, there was no installed idol and no dedication of the property in favour of any such idol. Leaving side the two guru poojas referred to we may for the purpose of argument take it that the property was set apart also for the purpose of performing mandagapadi on one day in the year during Chitra festival for Sri Meenakshisundareswarar. The question we have to consider is whether it can be said that there was a dedication for any deity in so far as the performance of that mandagapadi is concerned and whether the owner of the property divested themselves of their rights and vested the property in any other juristic personality.