BADRI NATH & ANR. versus MST. PUNNA (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 209 · Decided: 15-02-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
• 
_J...__ 
,. 
) 
' 
209 
BADRI NATH & ANR. 
v. 
MST. PUNNA (DEAD) BY LRS & ORS. 
February 15, 1979 
[V. R. KRISHNA !YER, D· A. DESAI AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-S. 4-Scope of-Share of a baridar (turn-
hulder) ill the ofJerings of a temple-If a heritage right nature of office 
of baridar-C11ston1 that offerings should go to specified sub-castes-if valid . 
The plaintiff's (respondent's) father and the defendants (appellants) 
were 
entitled to receive a defined share in the offerings made at a holy shrine. 
OB 
her father's death the plaintiff claimed his share in the offering~ alleging that 
both under the law of inheritance and by virtue of her father's wt11 executed 
in her favour, she was entitled to his share; but the defendants interfered with 
her right to collect that share. 
In the plaintiff's suit the defendants contended that only members belong~ 
A 
B 
c 
ing to four specified sub-castes were entitled to receive the offerings and the 
D 
plaintiff lm'Ving lost her sub-caste by reason of her marriage outside those 
sub-castes she was not entitled to her fs.ther's share. But this argument was 
rejected by the trial court which held that on the dea.th of the baridar (lum-
holder) his heirs inherited his right to receive offerings just as they inherited 
!his other property and that therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the offerings 
both under the Hindu Succession Act and the will executed by her father. 
On appeal a Division Bench of the High Court held that where offerings 
were received by persons independently of any obligation to render services, 
they were alienable and attachable and that the custom which restricted the 
right to a share in the offerings only to members of the four specified sub-
castes, could not be given effect tG in Yiew of the provisions of the 
Hindu 
Succession Act and that therefore, the plaintiff \Vas entitled to succeed to the 
right though she did not belong to any of the sub-castes. 
On further appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appel-
lants that (1) the right of the baridar was not a trans[erable right and (2) 
the right to a share in the offerings and the duties attached to it must be 
regarded as an office like that of a shebait and cannot be regarded as heritable 
property. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The right of the baridar was a transferable right. 
1. To begin with, the right to a share in the offerings, according to the settle-
ment record prepared for the village and 01 resolution passed by the Dharmarth 
Committee, was restricted to the four sub-castes, and similarly the baridars 
did not perform any duties in return. Sometime later, liowever, certain obli-
gations, such as to provide permanent servant~, to look after visitors and the 
like, were superimposed on that right. Though the fight to receive & share 
in the offerings was subject to the performance of those duties, none of them 
E 
F 
G 
210 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 3 s.c.R. 
.. '--
was in nature priestly or required a personal qualification. All of them were 
of a non-religious or secular character which could be performed by 
the 
baridar's agents or servants incurring expense on his account. When the right 
to receive !.he offerings made at a teinple is independent of rin obligation to 
-.. 
render services involving qualifications of personal nature, (such as offi.c;at-
ing the worship) such a right is herit~le as well as alienable. [217 B-H] 
., 
B 
Balmukand & ors. v. Tula Ram & ors., AIR 1928 All. 721 approved. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
2. (0•) The right of the baridars cannot be equated with 
the right 
and 
' 
duties of a shebait. The haridars were not managers of the shrine 
in the 
sense that a shebait is in relation to a temple in his 
charge. The 
overall 
• 
management of the temple vested in the Board of Trustees known as Dhar· 
-....4..... 
marth Committee. (218 EJ 
'" 
(b) It is not correct to say that shebaitship is neither more nor less than 
an office and is not heritable property. Shebaitship cannot be described as a 
mere office. In addition to certain responsibilities it carries with it a definite 
right to property. It is well-established that in the concept, CJf Shebait, both 
the elements of office and property, duties and personal inter·~st are mixed up 
and one element cannot be detached from the 
other. 
Old 
texts as ¥;ell as 
courts have recognised heriditary office of shebaitship as itnmovablc property. 
(218 F; 220 A-BJ 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.