The central legal point established in the judgment is that the dedication of property to an idol becomes invalid if executed in fraud of creditors, and the rights of the idol and the Shebait are governed by Hindu Law principles.

JUDGMENT

Chotzner, J. - This is a suit instituted fey Sri Sri Kalimata Devi established at No. 28, Sovabazar Street, by her next friend Srimati Basanta Kumari Debi and by the said Srimati Basanta Kumari Debi as one of the worshippers of the said deity, for a declaration that the deed of revocation and mortgage executed by one Suresh Chunder Chuckerbutty are not binding upon the idol. The facts of the case are a follows:

Nemai Chunder Chuckerbutty, who died in 1894, left four sons : Sashi, Suresh, Nagendra and Debendra. Sashi and Debendra died before the 1st, May 1922, on which date Suresh executed a deed of trust in favour of himself and his brother Nagendra in regard to two properties, being No. 12 Beniatolla Street, and 18 Sovabazar Street. The deed of trust provided that Suresh and Nagendra should be the Shebaits to carry on the worship of the idol and that Chandi, Nagendra's son, and Gourmohau, Debendra's son, should also be added to the category of Shebaits upon attainment of their majority.

2. On 6th June 1928 Suresh and Nagendra, acting for himself and as guardian for Chandi, and Bejoy, son of Suresh, as well as Charubala, Debendra's wife, as :guardian for Gourmohan, executed a deed of revocation the effect of which was to set aside the deed of trust executed on the 1st May 1922. Thereafter, on 20th June 1923, Suresh executed a mortgage in favour of the 8th defendant, the firm of Kodarmull Luchminarain, which has since filed a suit on the mortgage and recovered a decree.

3. The defence to the suit is that the deed of trust in May 1922 is merely a colourable transaction executed in fraud of creditors and has therefore no legal or binding effect, and was never acted upon. It is further said that Suresh never actually divested himself of the property or of his beneficial interest therein and after the deed of settlement appropriated the rents and profits thereof to his own use and not to the worship of the idol. The defendants further plead that there was no dedication of the properties and no trust was effectually created thereby and that neither of the properties became debutter property or the absolute property of the idol. It was in any event a fraudulent or colourable debutter created with the ulterior object mentioned and thus constituted no valid endowment or dedication. The defendants further plead that the liability of the mortgagor was just and bona fide and that there was valid consideration for the said mortgage. They further plead that Sreemati Basanta Kumari Debi was not the Shebait of the idol and has no locus standi to maintain this suit, and further, that the idol never had any title in the properties so that no cloud could be cast over it in any way. The infant defendants submit their interest to the protection and judgment of the Court.

4. The defendants, Nagendra, Srimati Charubala Dobi and Nandabala Debi, have filed written statements; and in paragraph 2 they say that tome time before the deed of trust Suresh became involved in debts and closed his business, whereupon his creditors began to press him; and in order to appease them Suresh proposed to these defendants that they should execute along with him a deed purporting to revoke the deed of dedication and it was on account of the importunate requests of Suresh that these defendants were prevailed upon to execute the deed of revocation and. they say they had no independent advice at the time but acted entirely on the representation made by Suresh without caring to read, understand or appreciate the nature and effect thereof.

5. The following issues were framed:

(1) Was there any valid dedication of the properties in suit to Plaintiff No. 1.

(2) Where the properties treated as absolute debutter properties of the idols?

(3) Is the suit maintainable by either of the plaintiffs?

(4) Is the deed of revocation void?

(5) Is the mortgage in favour of Defendant No. 8 void.

(6) What reliefs, if any, are the plaintiffs or either of them entitled to?

6. I will deal with the