http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: BISHWANATH AND ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI THAKUR RADHABALLABHJI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/02/1967

BENCH: RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) BENCH: RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ) SHELAT, J.M.

CITATION:  1967 AIR 1044            1967 SCR  (2) 618  CITATOR INFO :  D          1986 SC 231  (8,15)

ACT: Code  of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), s.  92-Shebait  of Hindu idol alienating idols Property--suit by worshipper  on behalf of idol for declaration of title and recovery of said property-Suit whether governed by s. 92. Hindu  Law-Shebait acting adversely to interests of idol  or not  protecting  its interest Right of  worshipper  to  file suit.

HEADNOTE: The  Manager  of a temple alienated the idols  property.   A worshipper of the idol who also assisted the Manager in  his duties, filed a suit as next friend of the idol  challenging the alienation.  The reliefs sought were a declaration  that the   property  belonged  to  the  idol  and   recovery   of possession.   The  trial  court’s decree in  favour  of  the plaintiff was upheld by the High Court.  The defendants came to this Court, with certificate. It  was urged on behalf of the appellants that s. 92 of  the Code  of Civil procedure was a bar to the suit, and that  no one  but  the  Sheba it was entitled to file  the  suit  and represent the deity. HELD : (i) The suit was filed by the idol for possession  of its  property from the person who was in illegal  possession thereof  and therefore it was a suit by the idol to  enforce its  private right.  The suit also was for a declaration  of the plaintiffs title and for possession thereof, and was not therefore a suit for one of the reliefs mentioned in s.  92. in either view this was a suit outside the purview of s.  92 of the Code and therefore the said section was not a bar t o its maintainability. [621 D-E] Abdur  Rahim  v. Barkat Ali, (1928) L. R.. 55  I.A.  96  and Mahant  Pyagdasji Guru Bhagwandasji v.  Patel  Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai, [1952] S.C.R. 513, relied on. Mukhda  Mannudas  Bairagi v. Chagan Kisdn  Bhawasar,  1.1-R. 1957 Bom. 809, Darshan Lat v Shibji Maharai Biraiman, (1922) I.L.R.  45  All. 215 and Madhavrao Anandrao  Reste  v.  Shri Omkareshvar Ghat, (1928) 31 Bom.  L.R 192, referred to. (ii)An  idol is in the position of a minor; when  a  person representing it leaves it in the lurch, a person  interested

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

in the worship of the idol can certainly be clothed with  an ad hoc power of representation to protect its interest.   It is  a pragmatic, yet a legal solution to a difficult  situa- tion.  Should it be held that a Shebait, who transferred the property, can only bring a suit for recovery, in most of the cases it will be an indirect approval of the dereliction  of the Sheba its duty, for more often than not he will not admt his  default  and take steps to recover the  property  apart from  other  technical  pleas  that  may  be  open  to   the transferee  in a suit.  Should it be held that a  worshipper can  file only a suit for the removal of a Shebait  and  for the  appointment of another in order to enable him  to  take steps  to  recover the property, such a  procedure  will  be rather  a prolonged and complicated one and the interest  of the idol may irrarably suffer.  That is why a worshipper  is permitted in such circumstances to represent the idol and to recover the property for the idol. [622 G623 B] 619 Kunj  Behari Chandra v. Sri Sri Shyarn Chand Thakur,  A.I.R. 1938  Pat  394  and Artatran Akkhagadi  Brahma  v.  Sudersan Mohaparra, A.I.R. 1954 Orissa 11, disapproved. Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick, (1925) LR. 52  IA.  245 and Kanhaiya Lal v. Hamid Ali, (1933)  L.R.  60 I.A. 263, appled. In  the present case the suit was brought on behalf  of  the idol  by a worshipper and therefore in the circumstances  of the   case  the  High  Court  Tightly  field  that  it   was maintainable. [624 D]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 780 of 1964. Appeal  from the judgment and decree dated December 21  1959 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 87 of 1948. M.   S.  Gupta,  Lalit  Kumar  and  S.  N.  Varma,  for  the appellants J. P.  Goyal and Raghunath Singli, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba  Rao,  C.J. This appeal by  certificate  is  preferred against the    decree  of  the High Court of  Judicature  at Allahabad decreeing the  suit  filed by the respondents  for possession of the plaint schedule property. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji, the deity, represented by  yaso- danandan  as next friend, filed O. S. No. 61 of 1946 in  the Court of the 2nd Civil Judge, Kanpur, against the appellants for a declaration that the deity was the proprietor of house No.  49/54 situate in Ban Bazar in the City of  Kanpur,  for possession  thereof and for mesne profits.  The case of  the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) was that Lala Jagan Prasad the  2nd  defendant  to  the  suit,  was  the  manager   and Sarvarakar  of the deity, that the said manager  executed  a sale  deed  dated  January  13,  1942,  conveying  the  said property  to one Lala Behari Lal, the 1st defendant  to  the suit,  for a consideration of Rs. 10,000 and that the  sale, not being for necessity or for the benefit of the idol,  was not  binding on the deity.  It was further alleged that,  as the 2nd defendant had taken no steps to recover the property in  order to safeguard the rights of the idol the  suit  was filed through Jagan Prasad, who was one of the devotees  and worshipper  of  the  deity  and who  had  been  taking  keen interest in the management of the temple where the deity  is installed.   To  that  suit the alienee  was  made  the  1st defendant and the manager, the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant set up the case that the suit property did

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

not constitute the property of the idol but was the property of the 2nd defendant purchased by him out of his own  funds. He further alleged that the suit house was in a  dilapidated condition,  that  its rebuilding would involve the  idol  in heavy and unprofitable expen- 620 diture, that therefore the second defendant as its  manager, acting  as a prudent man, sold the same for a good price  to the 1st defeudant and that, as the sale transaction was  for the  benefit  of  the  idol, it  would  be  binding  on  the plaintiff.  He also questioned the right of Yasodanandan  to represent the idol and to bring the suit on itabehalf.  Both the  learned  2nd  Civil  Judge,  Kanpur,  in  the    first; instance,  and, on appeal, the High Court concurrently  held that the sale was not for the benefit of the deity and  that the consideration was not adequate.  They also held that  in the circumstances of the case the idol had the right to file the  suit represented by Yasodanandan, who was a  worshipper of  the  deity and was helping the second defendant  in  the management  of  the temple.  In the result the  trail  court gave  a decree for possession and for recovery of Rs.  1,400 as past mense profits against the 1st defendant on condition that  the plaintiff returned a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the  1st defendant within two months from the date of the decree  and also  that the plaintiff would be entitled to  future  mesne profits  at  Rs.  45  p.m-. till the  date  of  delivery  of possession  of the property.  The High Court  confirmed  the same.  Hence the present appeal. Mr.  M.  S.  Gupta,  learned  counsel  for  the   appellant, canvassed,  the  correctness  of the findings  of  both  the courts  on the questions of fact as well as of law.  On  the questions of fact, namely, whether the impugned  transaction was binding on the idol and was supported by  consideration, we  do  not  think  we would  be  justified  to  permit  the appellant  to question their correctness, because  the  said findings  are concurrent and are based upon appreciation  of the relevant evidence.  We accept the said findings. The  only  outstanding question, therefore, is  whether  the suit   is   maintainable   by  the   idol   represented   by Yasodanandan,  who is a worshipper as well as a  person  who had  been assisting the 2nd defendant in the  management  of the temple. Two obstacles are raised against the maintainability of  the suit’ namely, (1) s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is  a bar  to the maintainability of the suit, and (2) a suit  for possessionof  the property of the idol, after setting  aside the alienation, could only be filed by the Shebait and  none else could represent the deity. It is settled law that to invoke s. 92 of the Code of  Civil Procedure,  3 conditions have to be satisfied,  namely,  (i) the  trust is created for public purposes of a a  charitable or religious nature;, (ii) there was a breach of trust or  a direction  of  court is necessary in the  administration  of such  a trust; and (iii) the relief claimed ls one or  other of  the  reliefs  enumerated  therein.   If  any  of  the  3 conditions  is  not satisfied, the suit  falls  outside  the scope  of  the  said  section.  A suit  by  an  idol  for  a declaration  of its title to property and for possession  of the  same from the defendant, who is in  possession  thereof under a void alienation, is not one of the reliefs 621 found in s. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  That a  suit for  declaration that a property belongs to a trust is  held to  fall  outside the scope of s. 92 of the  Code  of  Civil Procedure  by  the Privy Council in Abdul  Rahim  v.  Barkat

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

Ali(1)   and  by  this  Court  in  Mahant   Pragdasji   Guru Bhagwandasji  v.  Patel Ishwarlalbhai  Narsibhai(2)  on  the ground  that  a  relief for declaration is not  one  of  the reliefs enumerated in s. 92 of the Code of Civil  Procedure. So  too, for, the same reason a suit for a declaration  that certain  properties  belong to a trust  and  for  possession thereof  from  the  alienee has also been  held  to  be  not covered  by  the provisions of s. 92 of the  Code  of  Civil Procedure:  See  Mukhda  Mannudas Bairagi  v.  Chagan  Kisan Bhawasar( ). Other decisions have reached the same result on I  a different ground, namely, that such a suit is  one  for the enforcement of a private right.  It was held that a suit by  an  idol  as,  a juristic  person  against  persons  who interfered  unlawfully with the property of the idol  was  a suit   for  enforcement  of  its  private  right  and   was, therefore,  not a suit to which s. 92 of the code  of  Civil Procedure  applied:  see  Darshon  Lal  v.  Shibji   MaharaJ Birajman(1);   and   Madhavrao  Anandrao   Raste   v.   Shri Omkareshvar Ghat(3).  The present suit is filed by the  idol for  possession  of its property from the person who  is  in illegal  possession thereof and, therefore, it is a suit  by the  idol  to enforce its private right.  The suit  also  is for.  a  declaration  of  the  plaintiffrs  title  and   for possession  thereof and is, therefore.not a suit for one  of the  reliefs  mentioned  in  s.  92  of  the  Codeof   Civil Procedure.   In  either  view, this is a  suit  outside  the purviewof  s. 92 of the said Code and, therefore,  the  said section is not it bar to its maintainability. The second question turns upon the right of a worshipper  to represent an idol when the Shebait or manager of the  temple is, acting adversely to its interest.  Ganapathi Iyer in his valuable treatise on "Hindu and Mahomedan Endownments",  2nd edn.,.  at  p. 226, had this to say in regard to  the  legal status of an idol in, Hindu law:               "The ascription of a legal personality to- the               deity  supposed  to be residing in  the  image               meets with all, practical purposes.  The deity               can  be  said to possess property only  in  an               ideal sense and the theory is, therefore,  not               complete  unless  that  legal  personality  is               linked to a natural person." It  would  be futile to discuss at this  stage  the  various decisions which Considered the relationship between the idol and  its  Shebait  or  Manager qua  the  management  of  its property,  as the Privy Council in Maharaja Jagadindra  Nath Roy Bahadur v. Rani Hemanta, Kumari Debi(6) has settled  the legal position and stated thus: (1)  [1928] L. R. 55 I. A. 96. (3)  1. L. R. 1957 Bombay 809. (5)  [1928] 31 Bom L. R. 192. (2)  [1952] S.C.R. 513. (4)  [1922] 1. L. R. 45 All. 215. (6)  [1934] L. R. 31 1. A. 203, 209, 210- 622               "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."               Dealing  with the p osition of the Shebait  of               such an idol, the iprivy Council proceeded  to               state:               "...........   it  still  remains   that   the               possession  and  management of  the  dedicated               property  belong  to the  Shebait.   And  this               carries  With it the right to  bring  whatever

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

             suits are necessary for the protection of  the               property.  Every such right of suit is  vested               in the Shebait, not in the idol," This was a case where the Shebait filed a suit for  eviction from  the  dedicated  property  within  three  years   after attaining  majority and the Board held that, as he  had  the right to bring the suit for the protection of the ’dedicated property,  s. 7 of the Limitation Act, 1877, would apply  to him.   The  present  question, namely, if  a  ’Shebait  acts adversely  to  the interests of the idol  whether  the  idol represented  by  a  worshipper  can  maintain  a  suit   for eviction,  did  not arise for consideration  in  that  case. That   question   falls   to   be   decided   on   different considerations. Three  legal  concepts are well settled : (1) An idol  of  a Hindu  temple  is a juridical person; (2) when  there  is  a Shebait,  ordinarily  no person other than the  Shebait  can represent  the idol; and (3) worshippers of an idol are  its beneficiaries,  though  only in a spiritual sense.   It  has also  been held that persons who go in only for the  purpose of  devotion  have, according to Hindu law and  religion,  a greater  and deeper interest in temples than  mere  servants who  serve there for some pecuniary advantage : see  Kalyana Venkataramana Ayyangar v. Kasturi Ranga Ayyangar(1).  In the present  case, the plaintiff is not only a  mere  worshipper but is found to have been assisting the 2nd defendant in the management of the temple. The  question is, can such a person represent the idol  when the Shebait acts adversely to its interest and fails to take action  to safeguard its interest.  On principle we  do  not see  any  justification  for denying such  a  right  to  the worshipper.  An idol is in the position of a minor; when the person  representing  it leaves it in the  lurch,  a  person interested  in  the  worship of the idol  can  certainly  be clothed  with an ad hoc power of representation  to  protect its interest.  It is a pragmatic, yet a legal solution to  a difficult situation.  Should it be held that a Shebait,  who transferred  the  Property  ,Can  only  bring  a  suit   for recovery,  in  most  of the cases it  will  be  an  indirect approval of the dereliction of the Shebait’s duty, for  more often than not he will not admit his default and take  steps to  recover the property, apart from other  technical  pleas that may be open to the transferee in a suit.  Should it  be held that a worshipper can (1)  (1916) I.L.R. 40 Mad. 212,225. 6 23 file  only a suit for the removal of a Shebait and for  the- appointment of another in order to enable him to take steps. to  recover the property, such a procedure will be rather  a prolonged and a complicated one and the interest of the idol may   irreparably  suffer.   That  is  why  decisions   have permitted  a worshipper in such circumstances  to  represent the  idol and to recover the Property for the idol.  It  has been held in a number of decisions that worshippers may file a suit praying for possession of a property on behalf of  an endowment;  see  Radhabai Kom Chimnaji Sali  v.Chimnaji  Bin Ramji(1)  Zafaarab  Ali v. Bakhtawar  Singhe  Chidambaranat- Thambiran @ Sivagnana Desika Gnanasambanda Pandara  Sannadhi v.  P.  S. Nallasiva(3) Mudaliar, Dasondhay  v.  MuhammadAbu Nasar(4), Kalavana Venkataramana Aiyangar v. Kasturi  Ranga- Aiyangar(s)   Sri  Radha  Kirshnaji  v.  Rameshwar   Prashad Singh(6)   Manmohan   Haldar   v.   Dibbendu   Prosad    Roy Choudhury.(7) There  are  two  decisions  of  the  Privy  Council,  namely Pramatha  Nath  Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick  (8)  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

Kanhaiya  Lai’ v. Hanid Ali (9) wherein the Board  remanded, the  case  to the High Court in order that  the  High  Court might appoint a disinterested person to represent the  idol. No doubt in both the cases no question of any deity filing a suit  for  its  protection  arose,  but  the  decisions  are authorities for the position that apart from aShebait, under certain  circumstances,  the  idol  can  be  represented  by disinterested  persons.   B. K. Mukherjea in his  book  "The Hindu  Law of Religious and Charitable Trust" 2nd Edn  sum-- marizes   the  legal  position  by  way  of  the   following propositions,,, among others, at p. 249.               "(1) An idol is a juristic person in whom  the               title  to  the  properties  of  the  endowment               vests.  But it is only in an ideal sense  that               the idol is the owner.  It has to act  through               human  agency, and that agent is the  Shebait,               who  is, in law, the person entitled  to  take               proceedings  on its. behalf.  The  personality               of  the  idol might therefore be said,  to  be               merged in that of the Shebait.               (2)Where,  however, the Shebait refuses  to               act  forthe  idol,  or where the  suit  is  to               challenge  the  act of theShebait  himself  as               prejudicial to the interests of the idol  then               there  must  be some other agency  which  must               have  the right to act for the idol.  The  law               accordingly  recognises  a  right  in  persons               interested   in   the   endowment   to    take               proceedings on behalf of the idol.               (1)   [1878] I. L. R. 3 Bom. 27.               (3)   (1917) 6 Law Weekly, 666.               (5)   A. I.-R. 1917 Mad. 112.               (7)   A. I. R. 1949 CAI. 199.               (2)   [1883] 1. L. R. 5 All. 497.               (4)   [1911] 1. L. R. 33 All. 66), 664..,               (6)   A. 1. R. 1934 Pat. 584.               (8)   (1925) L. R. 5 2 I.A. 245.                       (9) [1933] L. R. 60 1. A. 263.               6 24               This view is justified by reason as well as by               decisions.  Two  cases have been cited before us which took a  contrary view.   In  Kunj  Behari  Chandra v.  Sri  Sri  Shyam  Chand Thakur(1) it was held by Agarwala, J:, that in the- case  of a  public endowment, a part of the trust property which  had been alienated by the Shebait or lost in consequence of  his action  could  be recovered only in a suit instituted  by  a Shebait.   The only remedy which the members of  the  public have, where the property had been alienated by a person  who was  a Shebait for the time being was to secure the  removal of  the  Shebait by proceedings under s. 92 of the  Code  of Civil  Procedure  land  then to secure  the  appointment  of another  Shebait who would then have authority to  represent the idol in a suit to recover the idol properties.  So  too, a  division  Bench  of the Orissa  High  Court  in  Artatran Alekhagadi Brahma v. Sudersan Mohapatra (2) came to the same conclusion.   For  the  reasons  given  above,  with   great respect,  we  hold  that  the  said  two  decisions  do  not represent the correct law on the subject. In  the result, agreeing with the High Court, we  hold  that the  suit filed by the idol represented by a worshipper,  in the  circumstances of the case is maintainable.  The  appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. (1)  A. 1. R.-1938 Pat. 394.                   (2) A  1.  R.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

1954 Orissa, II. 625