N.P.SINGH, J.

1. Defendants are appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff-respondents filed the suit in question for declaration of their title and recovery of possession of the suit lands on the ground that the Shebait had no authority to exchange the lands which belonged to the plaintiff-deity, with the lands belonging to the defendant-appellants.

2. According to the plaintiffs one Mukund Lal had dedicated the lands, which are the subject matter of controversy, along with other lands to the deity Shri Gopi Nath Jee, plaintiff 1. Said Mukund Lal used to look after the management of Shri Gopi Nath Jees properties. After his death, according to the plaintiffs, plaintiff 2 was looking after the management of the properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Ramdeo Singh, claiming to be the Shebait, executed deeds of exchange in favour of the defendants on 9-9-1960 and 6-10-1960 transferring the lands in question to the defendants in exchange of lands conveyed by them in favour of the deity, which, according to the plaintiffs, are sham, collusive and illegal.

3. The defendants contested the said suit. According to them, after the death of Mukund Lal, Ramdeo Singh aforesaid became the Shebait of the Thakurbari and he had exchanged the lands in question taking the interest of the deity into consideration. The claim of plaintiff 2 being the Shebait was also resisted saying that he was a mere Pujari of the temple.

4. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court holding that plaintiff 2 was a Pujari of the deity and not a Shebait, and, as such, a suit at his instance was not maintainable. It was also held that the transfer was for the benefit of the deity, and, as such, there was no occasion to declare it null and void.

5. On appeal, the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed on the finding that the transfer was not for the benefit of the deity and, as such, not binding upon it. The finding that plaintiff 2 was the Pujari of the temple and not the Shebait was, however, affirmed. It was held by the Court of appeal below that a suit at the instance of Pujari was maintainable. On the aforesaid findings, the plaintiffs title to the suit land has been declared and recovery of possession of the suit lands has been ordered.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellants submitted that the Court of appeal below having affirmed the finding of the trial Court that plaintiff 2 was a mere Pujari and not the Shebait of the deity, should have dismissed the suit filed at his instance. It was submitted that the deity can be represented only through the Shebait who can file a suit on behalf of the deity before any Court of law; this power cannot be extended to a stranger. In this connection reference was made to Mukherjees Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts where it has been pointed out that "the idol is the owner of Debuttar property only in an ideal sense; this ideal personality is always linked up with the natural personality of the Shebait", Reliance was also placed on the following observation of the Privy Council in the case of Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy V/s. Rani Hemanta Kumari, (1904) 31 Ind App 203:-

"The possession and management of the dedicated property belong to the Shebait; and this carries with it the right to bring whatever suits are necessary for the protection of the property. Every such right of suit is vested in the Shebait and not in the idol."

It is well-known that idol is a juristic person, and, as such, it can hold property and can sue or be sued in respect thereof, but it has to act through the Shebait. Justice Mukherjee in the Mukherjees Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, has pointed out while referring to the case of Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy (supra) that the view underlying the aforesaid decision seems to be that "as an idol suffers from perpetual incapacity to engage itself in juridical acts, the natural personality of the Shebait supplies this legal deficiency in th