Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Page, J.
Nagendra Nath Palit - Appellant
Versus
Robindra Narain Deb - Respondent
Decided On : 05-08-1925
Alienation - Shebait - [Sections 12, 15, 16 of Will] - The court held that a shebait cannot transfer the spiritual rights and duties attached to his office, even if the transfer is for the benefit of the deity. The court relied on the principle of delegatus non potest delegare and the rulings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which established that a shebait's power of alienation is limited to cases of unavoidable necessity for the preservation of the endowment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between relatives over the transfer of a shebait's rights and duties in a family deity's worship. The shebait, Girindra Narayan, executed an indenture of arpannama transferring his rights to the defendant, Robindra Narain Deb. Girindra later cancelled the power-of-attorney and filed a suit to declare the indenture void.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the indenture of arpannama was void and inoperative. The court held that the transfer of the shebait's rights and duties was not justified by any necessity and that the doctrine of 'benefit of the deity' cannot be applied to an alienation of spiritual rights and duties.
Issues: The main issue was whether a shebait could transfer his rights and duties in the worship of a family deity, even if the transfer was for the benefit of the deity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of delegatus non potest delegare, which states that a delegate cannot delegate his authority. The court also relied on the rulings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which established that a shebait's power of alienation is limited to cases of unavoidable necessity for the preservation of the endowment. The court held that the transfer of spiritual rights and duties was not justified by any necessity and that the doctrine of 'benefit of the deity' cannot be applied to an alienation of spiritual rights and duties.
Final Decision: The court declared the indenture of arpannama void and inoperative, granting a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
Page, J. - This case raises an issue of deep and general interest to the Hindu Community, viz., whether a shebait is entitled to transfer the rights and duties which appertain to his office.
2. On the 19th April 1867 Raja Sir Radha Kanto Deb died. He was an erudite Sanskrit scholar, and a personage of culture and distinction. He left surviving him three sons and numerous other relations of whom the following is a pedigree:
RAJA RADHA KANTO DEB BAHADUR, K.C.S.I., (dead) | ------------------------------------------------------- | | | (Kumar) Mahendra Raja Rajendra Narayan (Kumar) (Kumar) Debendra Narayan, Narayan x Kristo Ramani, (left one eon and four daughters) (dead.) (dead.) (dead.) | | | ------------------------------ ----------------------- | | | | | | Brojendra Narayan, Surendra Narayan,S.M. Brajo Coomary, S.M. Kamal Coomary, | (dead) (dead.) (dead.) (dead.) | | | | | | -------------------- | --------------------- | | | | | | | | | | Monindra Jatindra Narayan, |Nagendra Nripendra Narayan | | Narendra (dead) x S.N. |N. Mitter. N. Mitter. N. Mitter.| | | Padmabati, (alive.) | | | | | --------------------------------- | ---------------------- | | | | | | | | | |Khetter Pal Bhujanga Radha Ballaw Radha | Sachindra Robindra Dwijendra | Bose. B. Bose. Bose. Kisto | Narayan. Narayan, Narayan. | Bose, | (defendant) | (dead.)| | | | ---------------------- | | | | | | Minor son Minor son | | (alive.) (alive.) | | | | --------------------------------------- | | | | | | | Ganendra Bhupendra Shib Kali Guru | Narayan. Narayan. Prosad. Prosad. Prosad. | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | |Kumar Girindra S.M. Gourabini, S.M. Kristo S.M. Usha, S.M. Mokhada,Narayan (original (dead.) Tarangini (dead.) (dead) (left aplaintiff, dead x M. | | | son and daugh-S.M. Nagendra Bala) | Atul Krishna Ghose. | ter) (dead.) | | | | | | (Pre-deceased daughter)
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
