1909 (8) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of the principle of Hindu Law invalidating gifts to non-sentient beings to bequests for the establishment of an image and worship of a Hindu deity.
2. Validity of previous cases asserting that gifts to a Hindu deity whose image is to be established and consecrated in the future are void.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of the Principle of Hindu Law Invalidating Gifts to Non-Sentient Beings:
The primary issue was whether the principle of Hindu Law, which invalidates gifts to non-sentient beings, applies to bequests made to trustees for the establishment of an image and the worship of a Hindu deity after the testator's death. The court examined the will of the testator, which directed that the surplus income of his properties be used for the sheba and worship of Kali after establishing an image named after his mother. The court noted that Hindu Law favors dispositions for religious purposes, citing various texts and precedents supporting this view. The court emphasized that the establishment of the image was merely a mode to effect the pious purpose, which remains valid even if the image is established posthumously. The court concluded that the principle requiring a donee to be a sentient being does not apply to religious bequests, as these are intended for pious purposes rather than for the deity as a sentient entity.

2. Validity of Previous Cases Asserting Gifts to Future Hindu Deities Are Void:
The court scrutinized previous cases, such as Upendra Lal Boral v. Hem Chundra Boral, which held that gifts to a Hindu deity whose image is to be established in the future are void. The court found that these cases did not consider the broader context of religious and charitable purposes under Hindu Law. The court highlighted that an idol is regarded as a juridical person in an ideal sense, and the ministers of the idol act as trustees for its benefit. The court also referenced English law principles, noting that gifts for religious purposes are valid even if the object of the gift is not immediately in existence. The court concluded that the previous cases were incorrectly decided to the extent they conflicted with the view that bequests for religious purposes are valid regardless of the immediate existence of the deity's image.

Conclusion:
The court answered both questions in the negative, affirming that the principle invalidating gifts to non-sentient beings does not apply to bequests for religious purposes, and that previous cases asserting the invalidity of such gifts were incorrectly decided. The matter was returned to the Division Bench for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.