1. Dispute over recovery of Matmi dues from temple properties granted to an Idol under the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 198
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
24th August, 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.
Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj, Jaipur, Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 326 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Dr. P. K. Bhattacharya, Senior Advocate, (Mr. S. N. Mukherjee, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. G. C. Kasliwal, Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan (M/s. K. K. Join and R.N. Sachthey, Advocates with him), for Respondents.
Advocates:
B.K.BHATTACHARJI, G.C.KASLIVAL, K.K.JAIN, R.N.SACH, S.N.MUKHERJEE
B.K.BHATTACHARJI, G.C.KASLIVAL, K.K.JAIN, R.N.SACH, S.N.MUKHERJEE
A grant made to a deity (a juridical person) is not subject to mutation fees triggered by the death of a holder, as a deity does not die. The manager's beneficial interest is derived from personal law, not the State grant.
Headnote:(A) Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945 - Rules 4 and 5 - State grant - Matmi - Mutation fee - Grant made to an Idol - Liability to pay mutation fee - Matmi is defined as the mutation of the name of the successor to a State grant on the death of the last holder - An Idol, being a juridical person, is not subject to death - It is impossible to predicate that an Idol has died and that the claims of a successor must be determined - Therefore, no mutation fee can be recovered from properties belonging to an Idol on the ground that a successor to the manager of the Idol has been recognized. (Paras 5, 6)
(B) Shebait - Beneficial interest - Nature of interest - The beneficial interest held by a manager of a temple is derived from Hindu law, custom, or usage, and not by virtue of a grant made by the State - Such beneficial interest cannot be treated as a State grant for the purpose of levying mutation fees. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
Certain lands were granted in the name of an Idol, with the management and services entrusted to managers. Upon the death of successive managers, the revenue authorities ordered the recovery of mutation fees (Matmi) from the estate of the Idol, treating the succession of managers as succession to a State grant. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the beneficial interest held by the managers amounted to a State grant, making the estate liable for the mutation fees.
Findings of Court:
The grants in question were made in favour of the Idol and not the managers. Since the Idol is a juridical person that lives forever, the requirement of the "death of the last holder" for the levy of Matmi cannot be met. Furthermore, the beneficial interest of the manager is a result of personal law or custom, not the State grant itself.
Issues: Whether a grant made to an Idol is subject to the payment of mutation fees under the relevant rules upon the change of the manager (Shebait).
Ratio Decidendi: Because Matmi is specifically triggered by the death of the holder of a State grant, and an Idol as a juridical person does not die, the rules governing mutation fees cannot be applied to grants made to an Idol. The manager's role and any associated beneficial interest do not transform the grant into one held by the manager personally.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Judgement Key Points
What is the legal status of Matmi when a grant is made to an Idol as such, and can Matmi be recovered from the Idol’s properties?
What is the interpretation of Rule 5 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules in relation to State grants made to religious entities like idols or temples?
What are the rights and obligations of Shebait in relation to State grants and Matmi when the grant is in the name of the Idol rather than the Shebait?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Matmi is recoverable from temple properties granted to an Idol based on the beneficial interest of the succeeding Shebaits. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. An Idol is a perpetual juridical person; therefore, the condition of death of a holder required for Matmi mutation cannot be satisfied. (Para 6 , 8 )
4. Grants made to an Idol do not attract Matmi because an Idol, as a juridical person, is not subject to death or succession. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and writ petition granted to restrain recovery of Matmi from the Idol's estate. (Para 10 )
6. Does a grant made to an Idol attract Matmi under the Jaipur Matmi Rules?
No. Matmi is defined as the mutation of a successor's name upon the death of the last holder. Because an Idol is a juridical person that lives forever, it cannot die, meaning no successor can be determined for the purpose of Matmi. (Para 6 )
7. Does the beneficial interest of a Shebait in temple property constitute a State grant?
No. A Shebait's beneficial interest is derived from Hindu law, custom, or usage, rather than the State grant. The grant is made to the Idol, and the Shebait's role is one of management. (Para 8 )
8. Can Matmi dues be recovered from the estate of an Idol if the order was passed against the Shebait?
No. Since grants to an Idol do not attract Matmi, the properties of the Idol cannot be used to recover such dues, even if the order was nominally passed against the Shebait. (Para 6 , 9 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. : The short point of law which arises in this appeal is whether under Rule 5 of the Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945, the appellant the Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj, is liable to pay the Matmi amount in question. It appears that respondent No. 1, the Board of Revenue, had passed an order on the 6th November, 1956, directing that the Matalaba Matmi amounting to Rs. 15,404/14/6 be recovered from the Shebait of the appellant temple. The appellant disputed the validity of this order and filed a Writ Petition (No. 10 of 1957), in the High Court of Rajasthan contending that the said amount was not recoverable from the appellant. The High Court has dismissed this writ petition and the appellant has come to this Court with a certificate granted by the High Court.
2. In its petition, the case for the appellant was that several lands had been granted to the appellant from time to time and that these grants were made in the name of the Idol, and that the Seva Pooja of the Idol and the management of its properties was entrusted to the Goswami ever since the Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj was taken to Jaipur from Brindaban. On the death of the Ninth Shebait, Goswami Shri Krishna Chandra succeeded to the Shebaitship in 1888 and continued to be in management as such Shebait until 1935. On his death, his eldest son Goswami Bhola Nath succeeded and Seva Pooja was looked after by him during his litetime. On the death of Goswami Bhola Nath in 1945, his eldest son Goswami Pradumna Kumar succeeded to the Shebaitship and has been carrying on the management of the properties of the temple and looking after the Seva Pooja of the Idol. It was during the management of Pradumna Kumar that the impugned order has been passed by respondent No. 1. According to this order, Matmi has been sanctioned "in favour of Goswami Bhola Nath on the death of Krishna Chandra Deo and in favour of Pradumna Kumar Deo on the death of Bhola Nath" and the total amount directed in that behalf is Rs. 15,404/ 14 / 6. The appellant s petition specifically averred that the property in question had been granted to the Idol itself and that the Shebaits have been performing the Seva Pooja of the Idol and managing the properties of the temple as such Shebaits. On these allegations, the appellant prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction should be issued prohibiting respondent No. 1 and the Collector, Sawai Madhopur, respondent No.2, and their nominees or agents from recovering or from taking any step for the recovery of any Matalaba Matmi under the impugned order of respondent No. 1 from the petitioner s estate. The appellant also claimed that an appropriate order or direction or writ should be issued quashing the said impugned order as well as the prior order dated 20th April, 1954 on which the latter order was based.
3. Respondents 1, 2 and the State of Rajasthan which was joined as respondent No. 3 . disputed the appellant s claim and made several pleas. In regard to the allegation of the appellant that the properties in question had been granted to the Idol, the respondents reply merely stated that the allegation was not admitted as the documents regarding the original grants were not traceable. The respondents urged that the Matalaba Matmi had been properly levied by respondent No. 1 against the Shebaits and that the appellant s grievance that its properties were not liable to pay the said amount was not well founded.
4. The High Court has proceeded to deal with this dispute on the basis that the appellant, the Idol of Thakurji Shri Govind Deoji Maharaj was the owner of the properties. It, however, took the view that since the Shebaits were managing the properties and performing the Seva Pooja of the appellant Idol, Shebaitship itself being property the relevant Rules applied, because the beneficial interest which the Shebaits held could be said to amount to a State grant within the meaning of. R.4(1). On this view, the
