The court emphasized the significance of long-standing usage and immemorial practices as evidence of the founder's intention, highlighting the inference of dedication from family conduct and the application of proceeds.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal by the first defendant in a suit for declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to participate in the bhog offered to three idols and for consequential relief. One Gopinath Chatterjee, the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants, more than 200 years ago, consecrated an image of Vishnu. His sons Nandadulal Chatterjee and Durga Charan Chatterjee followed in the footsteps of their father; each of them consecrated an image of Siva, and Durga Charan Chatterjee consecrated, in addition, an image of Kali. Temples were erected, those now in existence were consecrated in 1792 and 1801 and elaborate arrangements were made for the daily worship. Properties were also dedicated to secure the due performance of the worship, though this is not directly evidenced by a written document. But the execution of a document is not essential for the purpose of a valid dedication which may be inferred from application of proceeds and family conduct; Muddun Lal v. Komul Bibee 8 W.R. 42; Moonohar Ganesh Tambekar v. Lakhmiram Govindram 12 B. 247 : 12 Ind. Jur. 387 : 6 Ind. Dec. 650; Abhiram Goswami Mohant v. Shyama Charan Nandi 4 Ind. Cas. 449 : 36 I.A. 148 at p. 164 : 36 C. 1003 : 10 C.L.J. 284 : 6 A.L.J. 857 : 11 Bom. L.R. 1234 : 19 M.L.J. 530 : 14 C.W.N. 1. It is established that from a long time past, service lauds have been held by persons who discharge various duties in connection with the temples and the worship, such as the dome who beats the drum during the daily puja of the thakurs, the barber who supplies flowers and bel leaves for the puja and provides light at dusk in, the temples, the gardner who supplies plantain leaves, the woodman who procures fuel, and the fisherman who supplies fish for the bhog. There is further evidence of the existence of a bund or tank which covers an area of 1100 bighas, of gardens and of other lands, the income whereof is regularly appropriated to meet the expenses of the puja including the bhog offering. It is not necessary to determine here whether the dedication was of the completest kind known to the law; Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Hemanta Kumari Debi 31 I.A. 203 : 32 C. 129 : 8 C.W.N. 809 : 6 Bom. L.R. 765 : 1 A.L.J. 585 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 698 ; or whether the property was secular, charged with a religious trust; Ashutosh Dutt v. Doorga Churn Chatterjee 6 I.A. 182 : 5 C. 438 : 5 C.L.R. 296 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 58 : 3 Suth P.C.J. 694 : 3 Ind. Jur. 571 : 3 Shome L.R. 32 : 2 Ind. Dec. 888 . It is sufficient to hold, as the Courts below have done, that there is an endowment and that the income thereof has been and is applied for the performance of the daily worship pf the idols including the offering of the bhog.

2. The plaintiffs allege that they and their ancestors, who are descendants of the founders through their daughters, participated in the cooked rice bhog from generation to generation till the first defendant obstructed them on the 31st December 1914. The Courts below have concurrently found that the descendants of the founders in the male line have been the shebaits, and as their number increased they arranged amongst themselves to carry on the worship, as is common, by turns or palas. The Courts have further found that the descendants of the founders in the female line have 'al-ways participated in the bhog after it has been duly offered to the idols. From the long continuance of this arrangement, which has been in operation now for several generations, the Courts have come to the conclusion that this system must have had its origion in a direction given by the founders. This was a legitimate inference, for as stated by Muthusami Iyer, J., in Venkatachalapati v. Subbarayadu 13 M. 293 : 4 Ind. Dec. 916 a rule of determination is looked for in the case of such institutions in their usage, because it is an index to the intention of those who founded and endowed them and who have since kept them up; Greedharee Doss v. Nundokishore Doss Marsh 573 : 2 Hay 633; Thackersey Dewraj v.