The court has jurisdiction to remove a shebait from his office for misconduct or abuse of his position as a trustee. The removal of a shebait from his office does not amount to forfeiture of his rights in the properties.

A. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT is the appellant.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS filed the suit for removal of the defendant from the shebait marfatdarship of plaintiff No. 1, the deity, and appointing plaintiff No. 2 to perform its seba-puja from out of the usufructs of the, suit schedule properties. According to them, Bhima Das, father-in-law of the defendant purchased some of the deity's properties from the father of plaintiff No. 2 and since then he as a co-marfatdar was performing his turn of seba-puja of the deity. After Bhima's death, his son dol-govind was also performing the seba-puja of the deity along with other shebaits from out of the usufructs of the suit lands. Dolgovind died leaving his widow (defendant) as his sole heir and successor. Since 1960, the defendant who is serving at Bhanjanagar as a female Jail warder has not been performing the seba-puja of the deity and misappropriating the income. On these grounds, the deity and its mar-fatdar (plaintiff No. 2) filed the suit for the above reliefs.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT resisted the suit pleading that she has been performing the sebapuja regularly in accordance with the usual custom; that plaintiff No. 2 has no right to institute the suit and also challenged the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit.

( 4 ) THE trial court decreed the suit in part directing removal of the defendant from the office of shebait marfatdar on the finding that she is not performing the sebapuja regularly. It, however, held that plaintiff No. 2 is not entitled to recover possession of the properties. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate court concurred in the finding of the trial court that the defendant is liable to be removed from the shebait marfatdarship as she is not performing the seba-puja of the deity regularly. In addition, it holds that as tha usufructs of the suit properties are to be utilised for the seba-puja of the deity, the defendant is liable to hand over the same to plaintiff No. 2 who is to utilise it for deity's purposes as its shebait marfatdar.

( 5 ) THE defendant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court on the ground that as since 1919 Bhima Das and his successors have been in possession of the properties, they have prescribed a light thereto and the plaintiffs are not entitled to dprive them of the same. She has also challenged the legality of the decision of the court below in removing her from the shebait marfatdarship. The plaintiffs filed cross-objection claiming to be put in pos session of the deity's properties as their main prayer for removal of the defendant from office having been allowed, plaintiff No. 2 is entitled to the consequential re lief or recovering possession of the deity's properties.

( 6 ) THE points that arise for deci sion in this appeal are as follows : (1) Whe ther the court has jurisdiction to remove the defendant from shebait marfatdarship and if such removal is valid; (2) whether the defendant can claim to have prescrib ed a right to the deity's properties; (3) whether in the present suit, a decree di recting the defendant to make over the usufructs of the suit properties to plaintiff No- 2 can be passed and (4) whether plaintiff No. 2 is entitled to recover pos session of the deity's properties from the defendant.

( 7 ) POINT No. 1 :-- The first contention on behalf of the appellant is that the shebait marfatdarship is not merely an office, but includes the elements of office and property which are mixed up and blended together. Therefore, removal from the office amounts to forfeiture of rights in the properties. The legal position regarding position of shebaits is well settled. In the decision in AIR 1951 SC 293 (Angurbala v. Debabrata), in para. 11, the position has been explained as follows :-

"the exact legal position of a shebait may not be capable of precise definition but its implications are fairly well established. It is settled in vidya Varuti v. Baln-sami, 48 Ind Anp