1. Dispute over Shebaitship of a temple and its property — claim of right through gift and succession versus claim of ancestral right and adverse possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 299
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., A.K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Smt. Shahzad Kunwar (deceased and after her legal representative Appellant No. 2 Smt. Lalli Bibi alias Ballo Bibi), Appellants
Versus
Raja Ram Karan Bahadur and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 350 of 1958.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. P. K. Chakravarty and B. C. Misra, Advocates, for Appellants; M/s. K. K. Raizada and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocates, for Respondents (Nos. 2, 3 and 6 to 9).
Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, B.C.MISHRA, K.K.RAIZADA, P.K.CHAKRAVARTI
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, B.C.MISHRA, K.K.RAIZADA, P.K.CHAKRAVARTI
Shebaitship is determined by the right to manage the deity's property. A priest performing worship (pujari) does not acquire Shebaitship or title by adverse possession if documentary evidence proves they were appointed by and acknowledged the authority of the actual Shebait.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Law - Shebaitship - Devottar Property - Distinction between Shebait and Pujari - Determination of Shebaitship based on management and control - Where a property is gifted and subsequently dedicated to a deity by the donee, the donee constitutes himself as the Shebait, and this right descends to his heirs. (Paras 11, 13)
(B) Adverse Possession - Shebaitship - Mere performance of sevapuja by a priest does not confer Shebaitship or title by adverse possession if the priest acknowledges the superior title and management of the manager. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
A temple was built on land purchased by a lady, who subsequently gifted the property to her nephew. The actual worship and service of the deity were performed by a priest and his descendants. A dispute arose as to whether the descendant of the priest was the Shebait or if the successor of the donee held the office of Shebait, with the priest's descendant being a mere appointed pujari. The priest's descendant claimed Shebaitship and title to the temple by adverse possession, while the successor of the donee claimed the priest was merely an agent.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the donee of the gift deed had dedicated the property to the deity and established himself as the Shebait. Documentary evidence, including a Sanad and declarations by the original priest, established that the priests were appointed by the managers and acknowledged the managers' ownership of the temple's ornaments and their own status as custodians residing by permission.
Issues: Whether the successor of the donee was the Shebait of the deity or whether the descendant of the priest had acquired Shebaitship and title to the temple.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Shebaitship is determined by the actings of the parties in relation to the management of the property and the service of the idol. Since the original priest had explicitly admitted to being a mere pujari and a custodian of the deity's articles on behalf of the manager, his descendants could not claim Shebaitship. The donee, having dedicated the property, became the Shebait in law, and this right passed to his successors.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the right of Shebaitship was created by a gift deed and succeeded by heirs or belonged to the pujaris by ancestral right and adverse possession. (Para 3 , 8 , 9 , 12 )
3. Documentary evidence shows the Rajas appointed pujaris and the pujaris acknowledged the Rajas' ownership of temple ornaments and management rights. (Para 9 , 11 , 14 , 15 )
4. A person who acquires property and subsequently dedicates it to a deity constitutes themselves as the Shebait, a right which then descends to their heirs. (Para 13 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the finding that the plaintiff is the Shebait and the defendant is merely the pujari is upheld. (Para 16 , 17 )
6. How is the status of a Shebait determined when documentary evidence of appointment exists?
The court examines the actings of the parties regarding management and sevapuja. If the purported Shebait appoints pujaris and the pujaris acknowledge the other party's ownership of ornaments and management authority, the appointing party is the Shebait. (Para 9 , 11 )
7. Can a gift deed of property create a Shebaiti right if the property is not yet dedicated to a deity?
Yes. If the property has not been dedicated prior to the transfer, the donee can subsequently make the property Devottar through their own actions, thereby constituting themselves as the Shebait of the deity. (Para 13 )
8. Does the exercise of day-to-day management by a pujari, due to the Shebait's absence, confer Shebaitship?
No. Greater control over management by appointed pujaris, necessitated by the Shebait living far away, is consistent with the pujaris acting as agents and does not automatically transfer the legal right of Shebaitship. (Para 14 , 15 )
9. Does the payment of temple expenses by a third party establish Shebaitship?
Not necessarily. The grant of financial assistance for the upkeep of a temple and the sevapuja of the idol is not inconsistent with the position that others are the Shebaits. (Para 9 )
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : Brindaban in northern India is rich in temples. Amongst the many temples that adorn this holy place of the vaishnavas is a temple of Thakur Radha Manoharji. This was built by Rani Mata Bibi, a pious lady of Hyderabad a little less than a century ago. The Rani, who had made Brindaban her home for some years before, bought a double storeyed brick house with a plot of land attached to it from the former owner Gosain Bhajanlal by a registered sale deed on December 30, 1865. soon after her purchase she built thereon a temple and installed in it the idol of Thakur Radha Manoharji. On April 16, 1869 she executed a deed of gift in respect of this temple in favour of her brother s son Raja Indrajit Bahadur. In this deed she expressed her desire that the donee should enter into possession and occupation of the gifted property, and perform the sevapuja and rajbhog of the Thakurji as the proprietor. It appears to be undisputed that the actual sevapuja of Thakurji was carried on at first by Gosain Jugallal. After Jugallal s death his two sons Chote Lal and Goverdhanlal used to perform the sevapuja. Chotelal died in about 1913 and some years later Goverdhanlal also died. When both of them were dead their widows carried on the sevapuja. After some years Goverdhanlal s widow also died. Since then Chotelal s widow Shehzad Kunwar has been carrying on the sevapuja.
2. The controversy that has arisen is whether Shehzad Kunwar is herself the Shebait of the deity or whether, as is the plaintiff s case, Raja Dharam Karan is the Shebait, and Shehzad Kunwar has been carrying on the sevapuja and looking after the property only as the Raja s agent and the appointed pujari.
3. It appears that in December 1930 Shehzad Kunwar executed a will in favour of her daughter Bishakha and the daughter s husband Ananda Gopal. In this will she asserted a proprietary right to the temple of Radha Manoharji though stating at the same time that the management of the temple was carried on under her mutwaliship. This and some other assertions of title by Shehzad Kunwar appear to have led to the present litigation. The first plaintiff Raja Dharam Karan Bahadur claims to be the Shebait of the idol Radha Manoharji. The second plaintiff is the idol itself. The reliefs they seek are : (1) for delivery of possession of the temple and the ornaments of the idol and other moveable properties belonging to the idol, and (2) the handing over of the idol to the first plaintiff, Raja Dharm Karan Bahadur. Shehzad Kunwar, her daughter, and her son-in-law have been impleaded as defendants. The first defendant Shehzad Kunwar, who alone contested the suit denied Raja Dhararn Karan s claim to Shebaitship and pleaded that Thakur Radha Manoharji was an ancestral idol of Jugallalji and neither Raja Indrajit Bahadur nor any of his descendants became its Shebait. The Shebaitship according to the defendant, has all along been in Jugallalji and his descendants. Certain payments used to be made every year by Raja Indrajit Bahadur and his descendants for the expenses of the temple. These however gave them no right to the temple nor made them the Shebaits of the idol. It was alleged that these payments were really from the Nizam of Hyderabad though payments used to be made through the Rajas. Another plea raised by the defendant was that in any case the plaintiff No. 1 or his predecessors had not been in possession of the temple in dispute or the office of Shebaitship at any time within 12 years next before the suit and so their claim was barred by limitation and that the defendant No. 1 had acquired a right of Shebaitship of Radha Manoharji and title to the temple by adverse possession. Certain other pleas which were raised need not be mentioned is they no longer survive after the decisions of the courts below.
4. The Civil Judge, Mathura, held that the plaintiff was neither de facto nor de jure Shebait of the temple and that the de facto Shebait was the first defendant. The Court
