9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (2) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in Ban Bazar in the City of Kanpur, for possession thereof and for mesne profits. The case of the plaintiff (1st respondent herein) was that Lala Jagan Prasad, the 2nd defendant to the suit, was the manager and Sarvarakar of the deity, that the said manager executed a sale deed dated January 13, 1942, conveying the said property to one Lala Behari Lal, the 1st defendant to the suit, for a consideration of Rs. 10,000 and that the sale, not being for necessity or for the benefit of the idol, was not binding on the deity. It was further alleged that, as the 2nd defendant had taken no steps to recover the property, in order to safeguard the rights of the idol the suit was filed through Jagan Prasad, who was one of the devotees and worshipper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 10,000 to the 1st defendant within two months from the date of the decree and also that the plaintiff would be entitled to future mesne profits at Rs. 45 p.m. till the date of delivery of possession of the property. The High Court confirmed the same. Hence the present appeal. 4. Mr. M. S. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant, canvassed the correctness of the findings of both the courts on the questions of fact as well as of law. On the questions of fact, namely, whether the impugned transaction was binding on the idol and was supported by consideration, we do not think we would be justified to permit the appellant to question their correctness, because the said findings are concurrent and are based upon appreciation of the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dure by the Privy Council in Abdul Rahim v. Barkat Ali [1928] 55 I.A. 96), and by this Court in Mahant Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji v. Patel Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai [1952]1SCR513 , on the ground that a relief for declaration is not one of the reliefs enumerated in section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So too, for the same reason a suit for a declaration that certain properties belong to a trust and for possession thereof from the alienee has also been held to be not covered by the provisions of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure : See Mukhda Mannudas Bairagi v. Chagan Kisan Bhawasar AIR1959Bom491 . Other decisions have reached the same result on a different ground, namely, that such a suit is one for the enforcement of a private ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the theory is, therefore, not complete unless that legal personality is linked to a natural person. 9. It would be futile to discuss at this stage the various decisions which considered the relationship between the idol and its Shebait or Manager qua the management of its property, as the Privy Council in Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur v. Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi, has settled the legal position and stated thus : There is no doubt that an idol may be regarded as a juridical person capable as such of holding property, though it is only in an ideal sense that property is so held. 10. Dealing with the position of the Shebait of such an idol, the Privy Council proceeded to state : ........ it still remains that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per but is found to have been assisting the 2nd defendant in the management of the temple. 13. The question is, can such a person represent the idol when the Shebait acts adversely to its interest and fails to take action to safeguard its interest. On principle we do not see any justification for denying such a right to the worshipper. An idol is in the position of a minor; when the person representing it leaves in the lurch, a person interested in the worship of the idol can certainly be clothed with an ad hoc power of representation to protect its interest. It is a pragmatic, yet a legal solution to a difficult situation. Should it be held that a Shebait, who transferred the property, can only bring a suit for recovery, in most of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Hamid Ali [1933] L.R. 60 IndAp 263, wherein the Board remanded the case to the High Court in order that the High Court might appoint a disinterested person to represent the idol. No doubt in both the cases no question of any deity filing a suit for its protection arose, but the decisions are authorities for the position that apart from a Shebait, under certain circumstances, the idol can be represented by disinterested persons. B. K. Mukherjea in his book The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust 2nd Edition, summarizes the legal position by way of the following propositions, among others, at page 249 : (1) An idol is a juristic person in whom the title to the properties of the endowment vests. But it is only in an ideal s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
