9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the right to manage a temple and/or shebaitship can be a subject-matter of testamentary succession. 2. Validity of the will executed by Lakshmanan Chettiar dated 24.05.1962. 3. Whether the right to hold the office of a pujari and a trust is a personal right that ends with the death of the holder. Summary: Issue 1: Testamentary Succession of Shebaitship The Supreme Court addressed whether the right to manage a temple and/or shebaitship can be a subject-matter of testamentary succession. The Court noted that the trust in question is a private trust, and the terms and conditions of the management of the temple would be subject to the desire of the founder of the trust. The Court held that shebaitship, which includes both elements of office and property, can be subject to testamentary succession. The Court cited Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick [1951 SCR 1125], which established that shebaitship is a proprietary right that can be inherited and is subject to the general law of succession. Issue 2: Validity of the Will The Court examined the validity of the will executed by Lakshmanan Chettiar on 24.05.1962. It was argued that the will must be held invalid as the right to manage a property and pujariship is a personal right and not transferable within the meaning of Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the Court held that a will is not a transfer but a mode of devolution. The Court affirmed the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court that the will is valid in law, citing that a testator by his will may make any disposition of his property subject to the condition that it should not be inconsistent with the laws or contrary to the policy of the State. Issue 3: Personal Right and Devolution The appellants contended that the right to hold the office of a pujari and a trust being a personal right would come to an end with the death of the holder of the office, whereupon it would devolve upon his heirs and legal representatives. The Court referred to Kakinada Annadana Samajam v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad & Others [(1971) 2 SCJ 527], which held that trusteeship and pujariship are properties but not properties within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. The Court concluded that the right to manage the temple and its properties can be inherited and is not merely a personal right that ends with the death of the holder. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court that the will executed by Lakshmanan Chettiar is valid and that the right to manage the temple and its properties can be subject to testamentary succession. The Court directed the learned Trial Judge to pass appropriate orders regarding the management and possession of the temple properties. The appeal was dismissed with costs payable by the appellant in favor of Respondent No.1, with counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 50,000/-.
|
