http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: SHAMBHU CHARAN SHUKLA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THAKUR LADLI RADHA CHANDRA BMADAN GOPALJI MAHARAJ & ANR

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/03/1985

BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) BENCH: VARADARAJAN, A. (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:  1985 AIR  905            1985 SCR  (3) 372  1985 SCC  (2) 524        1985 SCALE  (1)503

ACT:      Hindu Law      Religious  endowment-Founder  by   will making his wife shebait-No disposition in will regarding the shebaiti right- On death  of founder widow succeeding to the shebaiti right- Whether widow could transfer the shebaiti right by her will.      Hindu Succession Act 1956-Section 14(1).      Shebaitship-Right  to- Limited  right  of  Hindu female whether enlarged to the absolute right of the holder.

HEADNOTE:      The idol of Gopalji was installed by one Purshottam Lal in his  house at Vrindavan, which later became the temple of the deity. The founder who had no issue, performed Seva Puja of the  deity so  long as he was alive and thereafter it was performed by his wife. By his will Ex. A-2, he dedicated his entire  property  to  the  deity,  and  made  his  wife  the Mohatmim/  Shebait   without  any   power  to  transfer  any property. In  accordance with the directions of her husband, the wife  adopted the second respondent by a registered deed after performing  the necessary  religious ceremonies. After the death of the wife, the appellant in the appeal worked as Pujari  in  the  temple  with  the  consent  of  the  second respondent’s guardian  and natural  father. Later  he denied the rights  of the  second respondent and contended that the founder’s wife  executed her last will and testament Ex. A-6 bequeathing her  bank deposits,  government bonds, household articles, utensils  etc. to  the appellant to be kept by him in his custody, so long as the second respondent was a minor and to  be responsible for the seva puja and raj bhog of the deity and the management of the deity’s properties.      A suit  was filed  by the  respondents, for recovery of possession of  the idol  and temple  of Gopalji  and for the money  lying   in  deposit  with  the  bank,  the  zamindari abolition compensation etc. 373      The  trial  court  held  the  adoption  of  the  second respondent to  be duly  authorised and  valid and found that the founder’s  wife had  validly executed  the will Ex. A-6, but could  not transfer  the shebaiti  rights to  the second respondent thereby  and  that  the  second  respondent  had, however  become   the  Mohatmim/Shebait  by  reason  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

adoption, and found that the movable properties and the cash claimed by  the appellant  under the  will were the personal properties of  the wife  and that  the appellant  had become entitled to  them as  a legatee  under the will and that the other properties  belong to  the first  respondent-Gopal Ji, and decreed the suit in part.      In  the   appeal  by  the  appellant,  and  the  cross- objections filed  by the  second respondent,  the additional district judge  found that  as the  adoption was without the authority of the husband to adopt, it was invalid in law and following this  Courts’ decision  in K.K.  Ganguli  v  Pama- Banerjee,  AIR  1974  S.C  R.  1932  held  that  the  second respondent had not become shebait under the will and allowed the appeal  and dismissed  the corss-objections and the suit in full.      In the  second appeal,  the High  Court following  this Courts’ decision  in Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick, [1951] 2  S.C R.  1125 that  shebaiti is heritabal property, held shebaiti  is property  & found  that no restriction had been placed  in the  will of  the founder  in regard  to the shebaiti, and  therefore  the  wife  had  succeeded  to  the limited right  of shebait  as the heir of her husband and it became enlarged  into an  absolute right under section 14(1) of the  Hindu Succession  Act, 1956 and that as there was on other  heir   or  successor   to  the  founder,  the  wife’s appointment of  the second  respondent as  the shebait under her will  Ex. A-6  was valid  in law.  The second appeal was accordingly allowed  in part  except in  respect of  certain items enumerated  in the plaint, and cash in - fixed deposit with a bank.      Dismissing the appeal, to this Court., ^      HELD: (Per Varadarajan J.)      1. The  text of Hindu Law and the two decisions of this Court  in   Profulla  Choronl  Requittee  v.  Salya  Chornal Requittee [1979]  3 S.C.R. 431 and Ram Rattan v. Bajrang Lal JUDGMENT: Angurbala Mullick  v.Debabrata Mullick,  [1951] 2 S,C R 1125 show that  shebait  ship  is  in  the  nature  of  immovable property heritable  by the  widow of  the last  male  holder unless there  is an usage or custom of a different nature in cases where  the founder  had not  disposed of  the shebaiti right in the endowment created by him. [382B-C]      In the  instant case,  the founder (Purshottam Lal) had not made  any disposition  regarding shebaiti  right in  his will, Ex.  A-2  dated  14-4-1944  where-by  he  created  the endowment. No  custom or  usage to  the  contrary  had  been pleaded. Therefore,  the widow  (Asharfi Devi) had succeeded to the shebaiti 374  right  held by him on his death as a limited owner and that right had  become enlarged  into an  absolute right  by  the provisions of  Section 14(1)  of the  Hindu Succession  Act, 1956 and  she could  transfer that right by a will in favour of a  person who  is not  a non-Hindu  and who could get the duties of  shebait per  formed either  by himself  or by any other suitable person. [382C-D]      2. The  second respondent  has  acquired  the  shebaiti right under  the will Ex. A-6. No interference is called for with the  judgment of  the Single Judge of the High Court in the Second appeal. [382E]      (Per Sabyasachi Mukharji J. ’concurring)’      1. It  is well  settled that  shebaitship is heritable. This Court in Angurbale Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick, 119511 2 S.C.R. 1125 recognised the right of a female to succeed to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

the religious  office of  shebaitship in  view of  the Hindu Women’s Right  to Property  Act 1937.  Section 14(1)  of the Hindu Succession  Act 1956  enlarged the  limited right of a Hindu female  to the  absolute right  of the  holder. [382H; 383A]      In the  instant case,  the property  in the  nature  of shebaitship devolved  on Smt. Asharfi Devi under the will of her husband, Shri Purushottam Lal dated April 14, 1944. This will had  not restricted  the  property  in  any  manner  in shebaitship bequeathed  to Smt. Asharfi Devi could therefore make a will in respect of shebaitship. [383B-C]      2. It  is not  necessary, to express any opinion on the correctness or  otherwise of  the views  expressed  in  K.K. Ganguli v. Panna Banerjee, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 728. [383D]

&      CIVIL APPELATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 1372 of 1979.      From the  judgment and  decree of  the  Allahabad  High Court dated March 2,1979 in Second Appeal No. 626/76.      P.K. Chatterjee and P.K Mukherjee for the Appellant,       G. ViswanathaIyer and M.V. Goswami him for the Respon- dents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by       VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is by the defendant-respondent in Second Appeal No. 626 Of 1976 on the file of  the  Allahabad  High  Court  and  directed  against judgement of  the learned Single Judge of that High Court in so far as it relates to the 375 appointment of  the second  respondent/second plaintiff  Man Mohan   as the Mohatmim/Shebait of the first respondent Shri Thakur Ladli  Radhachandra Madan  Gopalji Maharaj (for short "Gopalji") and the properties belonging to that idol.      The second  appeal was filed by the respondents Gopalji and Man  Mohan, plaintiffs  1 and 2 respectively. The second respondent who  is the  son of  one Shyam  Sundar claimed to have been  adopted by Asharfi Devi, widow of one Purushottam Lal by  the document  A-24 dated  20-11-1956. The High Court has not  gone into  the question  of this  adoption  in  its judgment. Therefore,  it is  not necessary  to refer  to the case of  the parties and the judgment of the courts below in detail in  regard to  the question of the adoption. The suit was filed by both the respondents for recovery of possession of the  idol and  temple of  Gopalji described in the plaint and the money lying in deposit with the Punjab National Bank at Vrindavan,  the zamindari  abolition compensation and the rehabilitation grant  bonds specified  in  the  plaint.  The trial court decreed the suit except as regards items 1 to 25 and 37  to 41  of list I of Schedule "Ba" and the sum of Rs. 1004.97. The appellant filed an appeal in the District Court and the  respondents filed  a cross-objection in that appeal in regard  to the money claim disallowed by the trial court. The  learned   Second  Additional  District  Judge,  Mathura allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross objection and the suit. Therefore,  both  the  respondents  filed  the  second appeal.      The respondents’  case was that the idol of Gopalji was installed by Purushottam Lal in his house at Vrindavan which later became  the temple  of the deity. Purushottam Lal, who had no issue, performed seva puja of the deity so long as he was alive  and it  was  performed  thereafter  by  his  wife Asharfi Devi.  By  his  will  Ex.  A-2  dated  14-4-1944  he

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

dedicated his entire property to the deity and made his wife the Mohatmim/Shebait  without  any  power  to  transfer  any property. In  accordance with the directions of her husband, Asharfi Devi  adopted the  second respondent by a registered deed dated  21-11-1956 by performing the necessary religious ceremonies. After  the death  of Asharfi  Devi the appellant worked as  Pujari in  the temple of Gopalji with the consent of the second respondent’s guardian and natural father Shyam Sunder. Later, he denied the rights of the second respondent contending that  Asharfi Devi executed her last will Ex. A-6 dated 21-12-1957  bequeathing her  bank deposits, government bonds, household articles etc. to the appel- 376 lant Shambhu  Charan and  all her  jewellery including those kept by  her in  the custody  of Shyam  Sunder to the second respondent  and   declaring  that  so  long  as  the  second respondent was  a minor  the appellant shall act as Mohatmim of Gopal  ji and  be responsible  for the  sewa puja and raj bhog  of  the  deity  and  the  management  of  the  deity’s properties. They  will further  declare that  the  appellant shall continue  to live  in the  house  at  Bengal  Bindala, Vrindavan and  act as  the guardian of the second respondent in view  of his  natural father Shyam Sunder’s refusal to do so and  that on the second respondent attaining majority the appellant shall  hand over the sewa puja and raj bhog and he shall have  all the  rights of  Mohatmim which  Asharfi Devi held, without  any right  to alienate any of the properties. But this  will was not duly executed by Asharfi Devi and she had no  right to  execute such a will and it does not confer any right on the appellant.      Besides denying  the adoption  of the second respondent the  appellant  contended  in  his  written  statement  that Asharfi Devi  validly executed  the  will  dated  21-12-1957 inter alia  bequeathing items  1 to  25  and  37  to  41  of Schedule "Ba"  and items  3 and  4 of  the plaint  Schedule, namely,  the   fixed  deposit   in  Punjab   National  Bank, Vrindavan, the  zamindari abolition  compensation bonds  and the rehabilitation  grant bonds  which were all her personal properties, i-  and not endowed properties, to the appellant and he  has thereby  become  the  absolute  owner  of  those properties. In  that  will  Shyam  Sunder  had  got  certain provisions alleged  to confer  certain rights  on the second respondent inserted by exercising undue influence on Asharfi Devi, and they are not binding on the appellant.      The  trial  court  held  the  adoption  of  the  second respondent by  the Asharfi  Devi to  be duly  authorised and valid and  found that  she had validly executed the will Ex. A-6 dated  21-12-1957 but  could not  transfer the  shebaiti rights to  the second respondent thereby and that the second respondent has,  however, become  the Mohatmim/  Shebait  by reason of  the adoption and that the appellant had spent the sum of  Rs. 1004.97  towards sewa puja and raj bhog of Gopal Ji.  The   trial  court   further  found  that  the  movable properties and  the cash  claimed by the appellant under the will were  the personal  properties of Asharfi Devi and that the appellant has become entitled to them as a legatee under the will  and that  the other properties belong to the first respondent Gopal Ji and thus decreed the suit in part. 377      In the appeal by the appellant and the cross-objections filed by  the  respondents  the  learned  Second  Additional District Judge.  Mathura found  that the  adoption  made  in November 1956  was without  the authority  of Asharfi Devi s husband to  adopt and,  therefore, invalid  in law.  In  the event of  the adoption  not  being  upheld  the  respondents

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

wanted to  fall back  on the  will  to  support  the  second respondent’s  claim   to  shebaitship.  That  was  naturally opposed by  the appellant  as the  respondents did  not raly upon  the   will  in   the  plaint   and  based  the  second respondent’s claim  to shebaitship only on the adoption. The learned  Second  additional  District  Judge  rejected  that contention as  also the  contention of  the respondents that Asharfi Devi  as the  heir of  her husband could appoint her successor shebait  by her  will on  the ground that it could not be  done by  will following  this Court’s decision in KK Ganguli v.  Panna Banerjee(l)  and he  held that  the second respondent has  not become  shebait under  the will. In this view the  learned  Additional  District  Judge  allowed  the appeal and  dismissed the  cross-objection and  the suit  in full.        In  the second  appeal also  the question whether the appointment of the second respondent as shebait of the first respondent deity by Asharfi Devi’s will was valid in law was the only  question  considered  by  the  Single  Judge.  The learned Judge  expressed the view that it cannot be disputed that prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act a successor to  shebaitship could  not be  appointed  by  will unless it  be that  the will was executed by the founder who had created  the endowment  by dedicating  his own  absolute properties to  the deify.  In  the  light  of  this  Court’s decision Angurbala Mullick v. Debvbrata Mullick (2) in which it has been held that if a shebait dies leaving behind him a widow and  no son  she would succeed to the shebaiti right - under the  ordinary law but her rights in the shebaiti would be restricted  in the same manner as they would have been if the successor  was the  son, which  view reiterates the view expressed by  the Privy  Council in  Bhabe Foririe  Devi  v. Ashalata Devi  (3) that  shebaiti is heritable property, the learned Single  judge held  that shebaiti  is  property  and found that  no restriction  had been  placed in  the will of Asharfi Devi’s  husband Purushottam  Lal in  regard  to  the shebaiti and, therefore, Asharfi Devi had (1 ) AIR .1974 SC 1932 (2)(1951) S. C.R. 1125 (3) AIR 1943 PC 89 378 succeeded to the limited right of shebait as the heir of her husband and  it became enlarged into an absolute right by s. 14(1) of  the Hindu  Succession Act,  1956 and that as there was no  other heir  or successor to Purushottam Lal, Asharfi Devi’s appointment  of the  second respondent as the shebait under her  will Ex.  A-6 dated 21-12-57 is valid in law. The learned   Judge   found   that   the   zamindari   abolition compensation and  rehabilitation grant  bonds  go  with  the shebaiti and  could not be claimed by the appellant. Thus he allowed the  second appeal  in part  except as regards items l.to 25  and 37  to 41  and the  cash of Rs. 1004.97 and the fixed  deposit  lying  with  the  Punjab  National  Bank  at Vrindavan.      In this Court, the only question to which the arguments were confined  by the  learned counsel  for the  parties  is whether the  shebaiti right  could be  bequeathed by Asharfi Devi by her will Ex. A-6.      It has to be noticed at the outset that the respontents had based  their claim  to the . properties and the shebaiti right only  on Purushottam Lal’s last will and testimony Ex. A-2  dated   14A  1944  whereby  he  created  the  endowment constituting himself as the shebait and on the adoption deed Ex. A-24 dated 10-11-1956. That adoption which has been held to be  valid by  the trial court has been found by the first

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

appellate court  to be  invalid in law for want of authority of  the   husband  to   make  the   adoption  prior  to  the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the High Court has  not gone  into  that  question.  The  respondents attacked the  genuineness of  the will  Ex. A-6  in toto  in their plaint  while the appellant had relied upon it in part to the  extent that  it purports  to confer  on him absolute right in  regard to  certain properties including items 1 to 25 and  37 to  41 of  list 1  of Schedule "Ba". He contended that the  remaining position  of that will which purports to confer shebaiti  rights on  the second  respondent had  been fraudulently introduced  by the  second respondent’s natural father Shyam  Sunder by  the exercise  of undue influence on Asharfi Devi and that portion of the will is not, therefore, binding on him. However, the learned Judge of the High Court has allowed  the second  appeal in part stated above only on the basis  of that  will. It  may be  stated that it was not contended by  Mr. P.K.  Chattrjee, learned  Senior  Advocate appearing for the appellant that it was not open to tho High Court to  grant relief to the second respondent on the basis of the  will on  which no  reliance had  been placed  in the plaint. A8 379 stated  earlier   the  only  question  regrading  which  Mr. Chatterjee appearing  for the appellant and Mr. G. Viswanath Iyer, learned  Senior Advocate  appealing for the respondent advanced their  arguments was as regards the validity of the appointment of  the second  respondent as shebait by Asharfi Devi’s will, Ex. A-6.      Mr. Chatterjee  conceded in the course of his arguments that shebaitship  is heritable  property but  submitted that heriditary  succession   to  shebait  is  not  mentioned  in Purushottam Lal’s  will, Ex.  A-2 and,  therefore, after the death of  Asharfi Devi  shebaitship right will revert to the heirs of  the founder  Purushottam Lal  and that  the second respondent could  not, therefore, claim to be shebait of the first respondent-temple.  In this connection, Mr. Chattarjee invited our  attention to  the judgment of A.N. Ray, J., and K.K. Mathew,  J. Of  this Court  in K.K.  Ganguli  v.  Panna Banerjee (Supra)  where  at  page  737,  Chief  Justice  Ray speaking for  the Bench  has observed  that the  transfer of shebaitiship by  will is not permitted because nothing which the shebait  has can  pass by  his will  which operates only after his  death. Earlier  at page  733  the  learned  Chief Justice has observed:      "The rule  against alienation of shebait right has been      relaxed by  reason of  certain  special  circumstances.      These are  classified by Dr. B.K. Mukherjee at page 231      in  his  Tagore  Law  Lectures  on  the  Hindu  Law  of      Religious and  Charitable Trust,  First  Edition  under      three heads.  The first  case is  where transfer is not      for any  pecuniary benefit  and the  transferee is  the      next heir  of the  transferor or  stands in the line of      succession   of    shebaits   and   suffers   from   no      disqualification  regarding   the  performance  of  the      duties. Second,  when  the  transfer  is  made  in  the      interests of the deity itself and to meet some pressing      necessity.  Third,   when  a  valid  custom  is  proved      sanctioning  alienation  of  shebaiti  right  within  a      limited  circle   of  purchasers,  who  are  actual  or      potential shebaits  of the deity or otherwise connected      with the family."      This  decision   rendered  in   a  case   of  sale   of shebaitiright for pecuniary consideration appears to support the stand  taken by  Mr. Chatterjee.  But later decisions of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

this Court  have taken  a different view which appears to be consistent with  the principles  of Hindu  Law. We  find the following  passage  in  para  419A  of  Mulla’s  Hindu  Law, Fifteenth Edition: 380 "Though a female is personally disqualified from officiating as a  Pujari for the shastraically installed and consecrated idols in  the temples, the usage or a female succeeding to a priestly office  and getting  the same  performed through  a competent deputy  has been  well recognised  and it  is  not contrary to textual Hindu Law nor opposed to  public policy. In Raj  Kali Kuer  v. Ram  Ratan Pandey(1) the Supreme Court upheld such usage.’ In the next para 420 we find the following passage:      "A sale  by a  shebait or mohunt of his right to manage      debutter property is void, even though the transfer may      be coupled With an obligation to manage the property in      confirmity with the trust attached thereto. Nor can the      -right be sold in execution of a decree against him".        At page 158 of Mukherjee’s Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, Third Edition, it is stated thus:      "Unless therefore  the  founder  has  disposed  of  the      shebait ship  in any  particular way and except when an      usage or  custom of  a different  nature is  proved  to      exist, shebaitship  like any other species of heritable      property follows  the  line  of  inheritance  from  the      founder. Where the founder of a temple had died without      having appointed  a shebait, it was held that his widow      on whom the right to appoint had developed was entitled      to  appoint   a  shebait   for  the  temple,  and  such      appointment was  not open to attack as an alienation of      the office  of a trustee. And the rule that shebaitship      devolves like  and other species of pro. party has been      applied to  the  office  of  archaka,  as  well,  where      emoluments were  attached to  it." In  the decision  in      Profulla   Choronl    Requittee   v.    Satya   Choronl      Requittee(2), Sarkaria,  J, speaking  for  himself  and      Tulzapurkar, J. has observed at page 440 thus: (1) [1955] 2 S.C.R. 186. (2) [1979] 3 S.C.R. 431. 381      "Office and property are both blended in the conception      of shebaitship..  Apart from the obligations and duties      resting on  him in  connection with  the endowment, the      shebait  has   a  personal   interest  in  the  endowed      property. He  has, to  some extent,  the  rights  of  a      limited owner.  Shebaitship being property, it devolves      like  any  other  species  of  heritable  property.  It      follows that,  where the   founder  does not dispose of      the shebaiti  rights-in the  endowment created  by him,      the shebaitship  develves on  the heirs  of the founder      according to  Hindu Law,  if no  usage or  custom of  a      different nature is shown to exist."      A  similar  view  has  been  expressed  in  an  earlier decision of  Chandrachud, C.J.  and Desai and Pathak, JJ. in Ram Rattan v. Bajrang Lal & Ors.(1) where Desai, J. speaking for the Bench has observed thus:      "This hereditary  office of shebait is traceable to old      Hindu texts  and is a recognised concept of traditional      Hindu Law.  It appears  to be heritable and partible in      the strict  sense that  it is enjoyed by heirs of equal      degree by  turn and transferable by gift subject to the      limitation that  it may  not pass  to a  non-Hindu.  On      principles of morality and propriety sale of the office      of shebait  is not  favoured ...  Both the  elements of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

    office and  property, of  duties and  personal interest      are blended together in - the conception of shebaitship      and neither  can be  detached from  the other  ..A full      Bench of  the Calcutta  High Court in Manohar Mukherjee      v. Bhupendra  Nath Mukherjee  and Ors.  held  that  the      office of  shebait is  , hereditary  and is regarded in      Hindu Law  as immovable  property. This court took note      of this  decision with  approval in Angurbala Mullick’s      case (supra)..  Office of  shebait is hereditary unless      provision to  the contrary is made in the deed creating      the endowment.  In the  conception of  shebait both the      elements of  office and   property, duties and personal      interest are  mixed up  and blended together and one of      the elements cannot be detached from the other.. It is,      therefore, safe  to conclude that the hereditary office      of shebait which (1) (1979) 3 S.C.R. 963. 382      " would  be enjoyed  by the  person by  turn  would  be      immovable property. The gift of such immovable property      must of course be by registered instrument."      The text  of Hindu  Law and the aforesaid two decisions of  this   Court  and  the  earlier  decision  in  Angurbala Mullick’s case  (supra) show  that  shebaitship  is  in  the nature of  immovable property  heritable by the widow of the last male  holder unless  there is  an usage  or custom of a different nature in cases There the founder has not disposed of the  shebaiti right  in the  endowment created by him. In the  present   case  Purushottam   Lal  has   not  made  any disposition regarding  shebaiti right  in his  will, Ex. A-2 dated 14.4.1944  whereby he created the endowment. No custom or usage  to the  contrary has  been pleaded. Therefore, the widow Asharfi  Devi had succeeded to the shebaiti right held by him  on his  death as  a limited owner and that right has become enlarged  into an absolute right by the provisions of s. 4  (l) of  the Hindu  Succession Act,  1956 and she could transfer that  right by  a will in favour of a person who is not a  non-Hindu and  who could  get the  duties of  shebait performed either by himself or by any other suitable person. In these circumstances I hold that the second respondent has acquired the  shebaiti right  under the will Ex.A-6 executed by Asharfi Devi on her death on 7.3.1963. No interference is called for  in this  appeal with the judgment of the learned Single Judge  of the  High Court.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.      SABYASACHI MUKHARJI,  J. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed  with costs.  I would, however, like to explain the reasons  why I come to that conclusion. In my opinion it is well-settled  by the  authorities that  shebaitship is  a property which is heritable. The devolution of the office of Shebait depends  on the  terms of the deed or the will or on the endowment  or the  act by  which the Deity was installed and property  consecrated or given to the Deity, where there is no provision in the endowment or in the deed or will made by the  founder as  to the succession or There the mode of 6 succession in  the deed or the will or endowment comes to an end, the  title to  the property  or to  the management  and control of  the property  as the  case may  be, follows  the ordinary rules  of inheritance  according to  Hindu Law-  As Shebaitship is property, this Court in the case of Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick(1) recognised (1)- [1951] 2 S.C.R. 1125. 383 the right  of a female to succeed to the religious office of shebaitship in  view of the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

Act, 1937.      Section 14  (1)  of  the  Hindu  Succession  Act,  1956 enlarged the limited right of a Hindu female to the absolute right of  the holder.  As in  this case  there  was  no  bar against alienation  imposed by  the founder, the property in the nature  of shebaitship in this case was devolved on Smt. Asharfi Devi  under the will of her husband Shri Purushottam Lal dated 14th April, 1944. This will, the wordings of which have been  set out  in the  judgment in the Second Appeal of the High  Court, has  not restricted  the  property  in  any manner in  shebaitship bequeathed  to Smt. Asharfi Devi. The High Court  found and  I respectfully  agree with  the  High Court that  the first sentence of the will makes an absolute bequest of  shebaitship to Smt. Asharfi Devi. The subsequent words only  describe the rights and duties. In the premises, in view of the law as laid down in Angurbala’s case (supra), she could make a will in respect of shebaitship-      On the  aforesaid reason,  in my  opinion,  the  appeal should fail.  It is not necessary, therefore, to express any opinion  on  the  correctness  or  otherwise  of  the  views expressed  by   this  Court   in  K   K.  Ganguli  v.  Panna Banerjee(1). Appeal dismissed with costs. N.V.K.                                      Appeal dismissed (1) [1975] 1 S.C.R. 728. 384