Back
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD SHAW, LORD BLANESBURGH, SIR JOHN EDGE, AND MR. AMEER ALI.
PRAMATHA NATH MULLICK - Appellant
Versus
PRADYUMNA KUMAR MULLICK (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : Apr. 25. 1925.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case concerns the control and worship of a Hindu family idol, with specific focus on the rights of the shebait and the conditions imposed by historic deeds and wills (!) (!) .
The original installation and consecration of the idol was carried out by a family founder, Mutty Lal Mullick, who established the idol as a household deity with specific provisions for its worship and maintenance, including funds and duties assigned to family members and successors (!) (!) (!) .
The legal status of the idol is recognized as a juristic entity with rights and responsibilities, rather than mere movable property, and it must be treated with reverence and sanctity consistent with its religious significance (!) (!) .
The duties of the shebait include managing the idol and ensuring its proper worship, which can involve temporary transfers of the idol to different locations for festivals or family events, provided these actions are conducted with proper reverence and do not interfere with the idol’s worship rights (!) (!) .
The deed of 1888, executed by Jadulal, the adopted son of the original founder, is central to the dispute. The deed describes the transfer of premises for the idol’s location and specifies that the idol shall not be moved unless a new suitable location is provided, of equal or greater value, and that the idol is to remain in the specified premises until such a new location is dedicated (!) (!) .
The interpretation of the deed indicates that it does not constitute a dedication of the idol itself as property, but rather a trust of the premises for the idol’s worship, with restrictions on removal unless certain conditions are met (!) (!) .
The law recognizes that the idol’s will or inherent religious nature must be respected. If the idol itself, through its guardian or shebait, indicates a preference for a change in location, that should be honored, provided the change is conducted properly and reverently (!) (!) .
The right to worship an idol can be considered a joint or communal right, which may be subject to partition or turn-based worship arrangements among multiple worshippers or family members, but this does not diminish the idol’s sanctity or religious significance (!) (!) .
The objection to transferring the idol during a specific worship period was primarily based on the deed of 1888, which restricts such movement unless a suitable alternative location is provided. The court emphasized that the deed’s language indicates the idol is not property to be disposed of at will but is to be managed with reverence and according to the trust established (!) (!) (!) .
The court recognized the importance of protecting the interests of all family members, including women, and suggested that the idol should be represented by a disinterested next friend to ensure fair participation and proper regulation of worship rights (!) .
Ultimately, the case was remitted for further consideration, with the court advised to frame a scheme for the regulation of worship, ensuring the idol’s interests are protected and that the rights of all parties, including family members and the idol itself, are duly respected (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
Judgement
Appeal (No. 59 of 1924) from a decree of the High Court in its Appellate Jurisdiction (April 10, 1923) reversing a decree of that Court in its Original Jurisdiction.
The appellant brought a suit in the High Court against the respondents, his separated brothers, claiming, among other relief, that he was entitled to remove certain family idols to his own residence during his turn of worship, and for an injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the right claimed.
The respondents relied upon a condition as to the location of the idols contained in a deed by which their father (Jadulal) had dedicated a thakurbari to the use of the idols.
The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The trial judge (Greaves J.) made the declaration prayed, holding that Jadulal, not being the founder of the worship, could not impose a condition as to the location of the idols which would bind shebaits who came after him.
On appeal the decree was set aside. The learned judges (Sanderson C.J. and Richardson J.) rejected a contention that the idols were merely movable property as to which Jadulal as owner could impose any condition which he pleased. They were of opinion that the only question of substance was whether Jadulal in his capacity as shebait exceeded his authority in accepting the gift on the thakurs behalf subject to the condition; the true test was whether the condition was or was not for the benefit of the thakur. In their view it was so, since it insured that the thakur should always have a suitable abode, and be secured from undignified journeys; the three branches might split into numerous sub-branches, each with its own turn of worship, so that transfers of location might become numerous. They did not regard the condition as making a change in the character of the worship.
The suits were accordingly dismissed.
1925. Feb. 2, 3, 5. Dunne K.C. and S. Hyam for the appellant. As the High Court rightly held, Hindu law does not forbid the shebait of an idol from taking it to his own house during his period of worship Stokes Hindu Law Books, Mayukha (citing Narada), p. 80; Mitakshara, ch. 2, s. 12, ss. 3, p. 467 ; Dwarkanath Roy v. Jannobee Chowdhrain (( 1865) 4 Suth. W. R. 79.) ; Ram Soondur Thakoor v. Taruck Chunder Turkoruttun. (( 1872) 19 Suth. W. R. 28.) The deed of 1888, upon its true construction, does not take away the right of temporary removal for the purpose of worship. Further, Jadulal had no power to impose an absolute impediment to removal. The founder of the worship could have imposed what conditions he pleased, but Jadulal was not the founder. The deed itself refers to the idol as having been " established and consecrated " by Mutty Lai; his widow had rights in it. As to the powers of a shebait reference was made to Greedharreejee v. Rumanlolljee (( 1889) L. R. 16 I. A. 137.) ; Prosunno Kumari Debya v. Golab Chand (( 1875) L. R. 2 I. A. 145,151.) ; Rajeshwar Mullick
v. Gopeswar Mullick. (( 1907) 12 Cal. W. N. 323.)
In any case the appellant had the right as shebait to move the other two idols, as they are not mentioned in the deed.
De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the respondents. If the appellants contention is right, each of the shebaits, who might be numerous, could remove the idol during his turn, with the result that the idol would never be in the thakurbari.
Law. Rep. 52 Ind. App. 245 ( 1924- 1925) Pramatha Nath Mullick V. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick
47
Mutty Lal, having no children, was absolute owner of the idol. Under his will Jadulal took it as his property and without endowment. He therefore was competent to impose by the deed any condition which he pleased. A mere consecration of the idol by Mutty Lal had not the effect of a dedication, and imposed no restriction on Jadulals ownership Brojosoondery Debia v. Luchmee Koonwaree. (( 1873) 15 Ben. L. R. 176 (P.O.).) There is no clear authority that a shebait can remove an idol to his own residence. The appellant enjoyed his office
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
