The court emphasized that while it was open to endow property for the benefit of family idols, the line of shebaits as laid down by the original founder could not be altered, and subsequent managers did not become entitled to interfere in the management of the originally endowed properties.

JUDGMENT

C.C. Ghose, J. - This is an appeal against a judgment of my learned brother, Mr. Justice Page delivered on the 18tb August 1925.

2. The facts giving rise to this litigation may be shortly stated as follows:

One Gopal Chandra Seal who was a Hindu inhabitant of Calcutta, died some time in September 1911, leaving him surviving his widow, Srimati Badam Moni Dassi, and three sons, namely, the plaintiff, Lalit Mohan Seal and the defendant Dulal Chandra Seal and one Akhoy Kumar Seal, and after having executed his last Will and testament on the 20th day of August 1910. Akhoy Kumar Seal died some time thereafter, leaving him surviving his two sons, the defendants Brojendra Nath Seal and Banamali Seal. Probate of the said Will was granted, on the 16fch June 1916, to the defendants Brojendra Nath Seal and Banamali Seal, and subsequently on the 10th June 1922 grant of probate was also made to the defendant Kartick Chandra Seal, who is a son of the defendant Dulal Chandra Seal. Gopal Chandra Seal possessed various immovable properties, and in respect of some of his properties he had executed, among others, on the 22nd February 1897, a deed of declaration of trust, and on the 9th August 1906, an indenture of gift. The deed of declaration of trust bearing date the 22nd February 1897, related1 to Premises No. 6, Damzen's Lane, and the settler declared that the said premises should be held by him upon trust to collect the rents, issues, profits thereof and to apply the same in paying the rates, taxes and charges payable in respect thereof, and in maintaining the same in proper repairs and thereafter in applying and expending 1/3rd of such rents, issues and profits in and towards the performance of the daily worship of the settler's family idols during the months of Pous to Chaitra in every Bengali year, and 1/3rd of the residue for the periodical worship of the said idols during the said period, and to set apart the remaining 1/3rd as a reserve fund for the daily or periodical worship of the said idols or for the improvement of the endowed property as the shebait for the time being should consider fit and proper. The settler went on to add as follows:

I do further declare that I shall during my lifetime be the Shebait and managing trustee for the performance of the Sheva and the daily and periodical worship of the said idols and on my death my appointee or appointees, and in case of non-appointment, my wife Sreemutty Badam Money Dassi shall be the Shebait and managing trustee, and after her death my sons Lalit Mohun Seal, Akshoy Chunder Seal, Nilmoney Seal, and Dulal Chunder Seal jointly and severally shall be Shebaits and managing trustees, and after them their appointees and in default of appointment their heirs shall be the Shebaits and managing trustees jointly and severally for the time being and the said hereditaments and premises shall remain vested in the Shebait or Shebaits for the time being.

3. By the said indenture of gift, dated the 9th August 1906, the said Gopal Chandra Seal made a gift of Premises No. 13, Tiretta Bazar Street, to his son Akhoy Kumar Seal.

4. The present suit is brought by the plaintiff for construction of the deed of declaration of trust dated the 22nd February 1897, the indenture dated the 9th August 1906, and the Will of the testator dated the 20th August 1910, and for a declaration of the rights of the various parties to the estate of the said Gopal Chandra Seal upon such construction, and for a scheme to be framed for the daily sheba and periodical festivals of the family idols and for partition by metes and bounds of the estate of the testator. The plaintiff's contention in this suit is that upon a proper construction of the deed of declaration of trust and of the said Will, and bearing in mind that the said idols were the family idols of the testator, who was not, however, the founder thereof, the rights of worship of such idols could not in any way be affected by the said testator by his Will. The pla