1925 (4) TMI 2 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature and control of a Hindu family idol.
2. Legal status and rights of the idol.
3. Shebait's duties and powers.
4. Validity and implications of the 1888 deed executed by Jadulal.
5. Partition of the right of worship among heirs.
6. Objection to the transfer of the idol by the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature and Control of a Hindu Family Idol:
The judgment discusses the control and worship of a Hindu family idol, specifically focusing on a principal idol, the Thakur, and its associated deities. The idol was established and consecrated by Mutty Lal Mullick in his family home. The court emphasized that the idol, although a religious symbol, has a distinct juridical status recognized by law.

2. Legal Status and Rights of the Idol:
The court affirmed that a Hindu idol is a "juristic entity" with the power to sue and be sued. Its interests are managed by the shebait, who acts similarly to a manager of an estate for an infant heir. The idol's status as a separate persona necessitates that its preservation, maintenance, and services be managed by a human custodian.

3. Shebait's Duties and Powers:
The shebait, who is responsible for the deity's upkeep and worship, is either the founder or a designated successor. Mutty Lal Mullick acted as the shebait during his lifetime, and after his death, his widow and later his adopted son Jadulal assumed these responsibilities. The shebait's duties include ensuring the daily worship and ceremonies are performed correctly, either personally or through a Brahmin priest.

4. Validity and Implications of the 1888 Deed Executed by Jadulal:
The 1888 deed executed by Jadulal, which provided for the location and worship of the deities, was central to the dispute. The court held that the deed did not convey the idol as property but dedicated real estate in trust for the idol. The deed allowed for the idol to be relocated only if another suitable thakurbari of equal or greater value was provided. The court rejected the argument that the idol could be treated as mere movable property.

5. Partition of the Right of Worship Among Heirs:
The court addressed the issue of partitioning the right of worship among the heirs. It was established that the right to worship could be divided among the heirs by turns or "pala." This system was recognized in previous arbitration and partition proceedings, ensuring that each heir had a designated period to perform the worship.

6. Objection to the Transfer of the Idol by the Appellant:
The appellant's transfer of the idol during his turn of worship was objected to by the first respondent, who argued that the 1888 deed prohibited such transfers. The court found that the idol's will regarding its location must be respected and that the shebait could conduct worship at a different location if it did not interfere with the proper conduct of worship.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the idol should be represented by a disinterested next friend appointed by the court, and a scheme should be framed for the regulation of the worship. The decrees of the lower courts were set aside, and the case was remitted to the High Court for further proceedings. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.