The Supreme Court of Calcutta (Asutosh Mookerjee, J.) ruled in Manohar Mukherjee vs. Bhupendra Nath Mukherjee (1933):[40] But even if there is total devotion in the strictest character, the shebait does not lose all claims; Nevertheless, the ownership and management of dedicated land belongs to Shebait. [Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy Bahadur v. Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi] In Kacha Kant Seva Samity v. Kacha Kant Devi, a plaintiff claimed that the deity of the temple was given to her ancestor by the king, so it is their private deity and it is the shebait. It shows the ancient documents for the appointment of the ancestor as Deshmukhya, local people who testify that the plaintiffs had long performed the puja and offered other services rendered to the goddess by the devotees. The Supreme Court noted that because of the temple`s long ownership and services, it has the right to be declared de facto shebaits. The legal status of a mahant and a shebait is similar in some characteristics and differs in others. In Profulla Chorone Requitte vs. Satya Chorone Requitte (1979),[7] our Supreme Court stated that the legal character of a shebait cannot be defined precisely and precisely in English standards, although the concept of shebaiti and mahanthship is precise and limited by certain contours. In the case of Harishanker, son of Shri Amir Chand v.
Sri Lal Ram alias Shiam Sunder, it was decided that the transfer of Shebaitship rights by gift or will is permitted in the following situations: Mahant`s legal status is still unclear and unregulated. [89] In Mahantschaft`s conception, the elements of function as well as property, duties and personal interests are mixed, and neither can be separated from the other. If we accept this view, our courts will determine that the duty of a mahant is not simply to manage the temporalities of a mathematical. He is also the head and superior of the spiritual fraternity. The purpose of mathematics is to promote and promote spiritual formation by maintaining a competent line of teachers who could give religious instruction to students and followers of mathematics and try to reinforce the teachings of the particular school or order they claim to be followers. [90] It was published in Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Balusami Ayyar, (1928)[21], Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments Madras Vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954)[22], M.
Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das (2019)[23] Marthanda Varma vs. State of Kerala (2020)[24] etc. argued that office and property are both mixed in the design of Shebaitship. This is an important issue discussed above, and day after day, many disputes arise in the affairs of Shebait and the Godhead. Shebait works as a manager on behalf of the Divinity. Shebait deals with the requirements of the deity and controls the attributes of the deity. There is legal aid to resolve disputes between the Shebait and the deities. The above content mainly explains the rights and relationship between the shebait and the deity. The ownership of a temple belongs to the idol or is contested in him.
[11] The Shebaites are only managers responsible for the management of the temple and its property; and they cannot be recognized in the strict legal sense as trustees under strict English principles, mainly because they do not own the property. [12] In Profulla Chorone Requitte v. Satya Chorone Reparte (1979),[13] our Supreme Court has declared that a shebait is the human servant and guardian of the idol, including its earthly spokesman and authorized representative, who is authorized to attend to all its temporal affairs and administer its property. In Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick,[35] the Supreme Court (Mujherjea, J.), referring to the excerpt from the Privy Council decision in Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Balusami Ayyar,[36] further states that although the Shebait is a manager and not a trustee, the Shebaitship is not a “mere office”; as under: A Mahant is only the guardian of the property and not its owner. He does not have the right to transfer title or interest in favor of the buyer by signing a deed of sale, unless it is proven that there was a legal need for it. The buyer of these goods is required to discharge the burden of proof that the deed of sale signed by Mahant in his favor served the legal necessity of this institution, and therefore the deed of sale is a null and void document if the obligation is not fulfilled. Therefore, the deletion of such a document is not necessary, as it is clearly without title or authority. [111] How a foundation or trust is administered is determined by the founder. Therefore, the answer to the question of whether a woman has the right to be a shebait depends mainly on the intention of the founder.
In considering the validity of the transfer of a mutt in exchange for financial consideration (i.e. gift/transfer provided that the defendants retain the first claimant), it was decided in D Krishna Murthy v. C Ramana[131] that the transfer was unlawful. In Rajeswar vs. Gopeswar,[74] it has been stated that such alienations are not viewed with much sympathy and that shebaitships cannot be transferred by will. On the question of whether Shebaiitship can be transferred between living persons, the Maclean CJEU ruled that it can only be transferred in special circumstances. [75] The Mumbai High Court ruled in Raghu Nath vs. Purnanand[84] stressed that if one of the Shebaits intends to get rid of his duties, the right thing for him would be to give up his charge in favor of the returning Shebait.
In the case of such a transfer to co-shebait, no Hindu law policy is likely to be affected, let alone the alleged intentions of the founder. “If the cult of a Thakoor has been established, the shebaitship is deemed to belong to the heirs of the founder, in the absence of evidence that he otherwise disposed of it or that there was a custom, conduct of affairs or certain circumstances that show another type of decentralization.” The important point raised by the case of Vidya Varuthi is that apart from the inevitable necessity, the head of a sheep cannot arouse interest in the mutt trait in order to survive beyond its life. However, a tenant has no opposing possession. If the subsequent head consents to the possession of the tenant, this consent can only concern a new tenancy created by him, and there is no opposing possession until his death. Does this mean that alienation can never become permanent? This was clarified in Bawa Magniram Sitaram v. Kasturbhai Manibhai and another (Kasturbhai Manibhai and another), which stated: “If the gift was made by a person who possessed the limited power by virtue of which a Shebait possesses land consecrated for the purposes of religious worship, but nevertheless connected with the office in special and unusual circumstances, the power to grant a gift greater than one, who exists only for his life. After 100 years, when all the parties to the original transaction have died and it becomes completely impossible to establish the circumstances that led to the original grant, it is simply following the policy that the courts always follow in order to ensure, as far as possible, silent possession of those who are apparently in legal possession of an estate. assume that the gift was given legally and not illegally. This point was also confirmed in Chockalingam Pillai v. Mayandi Chettiar in 1896. The right to appropriate part of the usufruct of the property entrusted to him is, according to custom and custom, proper to the charge of shebaitship.
Thus, it is an honorary office with special rights to manage the institution and its property. [31] Thus, in Shebaiti`s conception, the elements of function and property, duties and personal interests are mixed and mixed; and one element cannot be separated from the other. It is the presence of this personal or economic interest in the property of the foundation that gives Shebaitship the character of property rights and thus links the legal incidents of ownership. But then it should be noted that the shebait has a share in the usufruct of the property of debutter, which depends on the conditions of concession or custom or use. Even if there is no reference to the function of shebait, he enjoys some right or interest in the property of the foundation, which has at least in part the character of a right of ownership. Thus, in Shebaiti`s design, the elements of function and property, duties and personal interests are mixed and mixed together; and one element cannot be separated from the other. It is the presence of this personal or economic interest in the property of the foundation that gives Shebaitship the character of property rights and thus links the legal incidents of ownership. This was done by a full court of the Supreme Court of Calcutta in the case of Manohar Mukherji v.