The judgment established the competency of family members and future shebaits to maintain a suit regarding debuttar properties, and the validity of a release of shebaitship. It also clarified the nature of debuttar properties and the consequences of an unlawful alienation.

JUDGMENT

Suhrawardy, J. - This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2 against a decision of the Additional District Judge of Midnapur confirming a decision of the Subordinate Judge of that place, allowing the plaintiffs' suit in part. The facts are that one Jaga Mohan Giri Das disposed of certain properties by. a will executed in 1286 A. S. whereby he dedicated some of his properties mentioned in schedule Ka of the plaint for worship of the family deity installed by him and appointed his wife Taramani as the she-bait of the deity. After her death her adopted son Madhusudan was to carry on the shebaitship of the deity with the income of the properties and after him shebaitship would continue in his line. Madhusudan mortgaged some personal properties to the appellants who obtained a decree upon the mortgage and had them sold. The entire debt under the mortgage not having bean satisfied by the sale they obtained a decree under Order 34, Rule 6, Civil P.C., and in execution of that decree, purchased the properties mentioned in schedule Ka, which were dedicated by the will of Jaga Mohan to the deity.

2. This suit is instituted by the present plaintiffs mainly for a declaration that those properties are inalienable. Plaintiff 1 is the son of Madhusudan and plaint-tiffs 2 to 4 are the sons of Akshoy, the deceased son of Madhusudan. They brought the suit as shebaits of the deity and prayed that the properties in suit be declared to belong to the idol and their sale in execution be declared invalid in law and for delivery of possession of the properties to the idol and for other consequential reliefs. The trial Court found that the properties were debuttar properties, that they were not personal properties of Madhusudan and that therefore the purchase in execution of the decree by the appellants, did not transfer any title to them. In this view the trial Court; decreed the plaintiffs' suit declaring that the deity was entitled to the properties mentioned in the plaint except some plots and also declaring that the auction sale of those properties in execution of the appellants' decree was void and inoperative against the idol and allowing possession to the idol of the properties. The appellants appealed to the District Judge who confirmed the decree of the trial Court. They have appealed further to this Court and several points have been taken on their behalf.

3. The main contention of Mr. Bose appearing for the appellants is that the suit is not maintainable at the instance of the present plaintiffs. His submission is that; the only remedy open to the plaintiffs is to bring a suit for removal from shebaitship of Madhusudan who was defendant 3 in the suit and was alive at the time of the institution of the suit and to get another shebait appointed in his place who may raise a suit of this character. The point has been very elaborately argued but in my judgment there is no substance in the appellants' contention.

4. The competency of the plaintiffs to maintain this suit may be advocated on several grounds. In the first place they are the members of the family and as such are interested to see that the worship of the deity is carried on according to the direction of the founder. In Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumnakumar Mullick , the Judicial Committee have held that in the case of dedication to a family deity one person acts as shebait but the other members of the family including the females are interested in She maintenance of the worship. It is admitted that the debuttar is a private debuttar and it is a family endowment.

5. It is worthy of note that in the ease of a public and charitable endowment any person who is in any way interested in the trust, is entitled to maintain a suit. for a declaration that the alienations made by the trustee are not binding on the trust, Abdur Rahim v. Mahomed Barkat Ali AIR 1928 P.C. 16. There is the greater reason for holding a person interested in a private trust as a member of the family for whose spiritua