1925 (4) TMI 3 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature and control of a Hindu family idol.
2. Interpretation of wills and endowments relating to the idol.
3. Legal status and rights of the idol.
4. Shebait's role and responsibilities.
5. Partition of worship rights among heirs.
6. Validity and effect of the deed of 1888.

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, consecrated by Mutty Lal Mullick, became the object of worship for his family. The court emphasizes that a Hindu idol is a "juristic entity" with a juridical status, capable of suing and being sued, and its interests are managed by a Shebait, akin to the manager of an infant heir's estate.

2. Interpretation of Wills and Endowments Relating to the Idol:
Mutty Lal Mullick's will, dated August 17, 1846, provided that his widow would manage his estate, including the idol, until his adopted son, Jadulal, reached twenty. The will allocated Rs. 600 monthly for the idol's worship and maintenance. Upon reaching twenty, Jadulal was to assume these responsibilities. Ranganmoui, the widow, also made a significant endowment in her will, appointing Jadulal as executor and trustee, directing that the income from her property be used for the idol's worship.

3. Legal Status and Rights of the Idol:
The court reaffirms that a Hindu idol has a separate legal persona, symbolizing divinity, and must be treated with the same respect as a living being. The idol's interests, including its preservation and worship, are managed by a Shebait. The court rejects the notion that the idol can be treated as mere movable property, emphasizing its sanctity and legal recognition.

4. Shebait's Role and Responsibilities:
The Shebait is responsible for the idol's worship and maintenance. Mutty Lal Mullick acted as Shebait during his lifetime, and after his death, his widow and then his adopted son, Jadulal, assumed this role. The Shebait's duties include ensuring the idol's worship is conducted properly, either personally or through a Brahmin priest. The court highlights that the Shebaitship is vested in the heirs of the founder unless otherwise disposed of.

5. Partition of Worship Rights Among Heirs:
The court addresses the partition of worship rights among Jadulal's three sons after his death. The arbitration award by Mr. W. C. Bonnerjee in 1899 recognized the sons' rights to worship by turns (pala). This system was upheld in subsequent legal proceedings, with the court affirming that joint owners of worship rights are entitled to perform worship by turns, as established in the case of Mitta Kunth Audhicarry v. Neerunjun Audhicarry (1874).

6. Validity and Effect of the Deed of 1888:
The deed executed by Jadulal in 1888, which provided premises for the idol's worship, is central to the dispute. The court analyzes the deed, concluding that it was not a dedication of the idol as property but a dedication of real estate in trust for the idol. The deed allowed for the idol's relocation to another suitable Thakurbari, provided it was of equal or greater value. The court emphasizes that the idol's will, expressed through the Shebait, must be respected in matters of location and worship.

Conclusion:
The court remits the case to the High Court for further proceedings, including appointing a disinterested next friend for the idol and framing a scheme for regulating the idol's worship. The decrees of the lower courts are set aside, and the parties are to bear their own costs.