PROFULLA CHORONE REQUITTE & ORS. versus SATYA CHORONE REQUITTE

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 431 · Decided: 02-03-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
.. • 
• 
431 
PROFULLA CHORONE REQUI'ITE & ORS. 
v. 
SATYA CHORONE REQUITTE 
March 2, 1979 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.] 
Interpretation of Wills-Common ancestor of 
plaintiffs 
and defendant! 
created absolute debutter of his house in favour of family deity-By two wills 
devised and bequeathed the house to the trustees for service and lvorship of 
the deity-Shebaiti rights-Whether vested in trustees or descendants 
of the 
testator. 
The common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendant owned 
a 
big 
residential house (the suit property) In which he had his fumily deity. By 
hvo wills-one dated June 4, 1898 in respect of his properties in British lndia 
and another, dated June 6, 1898 in respect of the house property in Chandran-
gore-he appointed his wife, two sons and nephews as hustees of the estate. 
By these wills he provided that in the event of vacancy occurring in the office 
of trustees the continuing trustees might appoint any other person or persons 
to be a trustee or trustees. By his will of June 6, 1898 th'e tes-ta.tor created an 
absolute debutter in favour of the family deity. 
This will also stated that he 
"devised and bequeathed" the Chandranagore house to the tn1stees named 
therein as a dwelling house "upon trust to stand possessed of" and "to hold, 
retain and use the premises ns an endowed or debutter property for the service 
and worship of" the family deity. 
B 
c 
D 
In 1934 rival claims of the sons and grandsons of the testator to their 
E 
residence in the debutter property were referred to an arbitrator. The arbitra-
tor allotted rooms nos. 72 and 82 which had been in his use and occupation 
from before to the defendant (respondent) and allotted certain other rooms 
to the other sons and grandsons of the testator. 
The then trustees (plaintiffs) filed a suit in 1959 claiming that the dwelling 
house at Cbandranagore being absolute debutter property belonging 
to the 
deity none other than the trustees had any legal right in it, and since the award 
of the arbitrator was not binding on the deity the defendant should be ejected 
from the rooms forcibly occupied by him . 
The defendant on the other hand claimed that he was in occupation of the 
rooms in dispute in his own right as a shebait and that the plaintiffs had no 
right to represent the deity and so had no locus standi to maintain the suit 
as trustees. 
Dismissing the suit the trial court held that on the death of the testator it 
was not the trustees but the descendants of the testator who became shebO.its 
and who had the shebaiti rights in the endowed property and that the defendant 
being the descendant (grandson) of the testator, had a right, as a co-.~hebait, 
to occupy the rooms in the suit property. 
IJ'he District Judge, on appeal, affirmed the decision of the trial court. 
8-253 scr /79 
G 
H 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 3 s.c.R. 
A 
On second appeal the High c·ourt decreed possession of certain rooms to 
the plaintiffs but not in respect of the rooms under the occupation 
of the 
defendant. 
0n further appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the plaintiffs 
that from the language used in the 'vill dated June 6, 1898 the intention of the 
testator was clearly to constitute the tn1stees as shebaits of the property with 
B 
exclusive right to manage the dehutter. 
On the other hand on behalf of the defendant it was contended that the 
two wills should be read as complementary to each other, and so read, they 
made it clear that the testator did not wish W part with his shebaiti ri;ghts, 
which were heritable property, in favour of the trustees to the exclusion of 
his natural heirs under the Hindu Law. 
C 
.Allowing the defendant's appeal and dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal. 
0 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : 1. A conspectus of the various provisions of the two wills makes 
it clear tha.t the testator left th'e shebaitsliip undisposed of with the presumed 
intention that it devolved on bis natural heirs who would have the 
ri,g,ht to 
use the suit house as their family dwelling house. The rights conferred o:o the 
trustees may amount to curtailment of the right to manage the endowed property 
which a shebait would otherwise have; but such curtailment by itself would not 
make the ordinary rules of Hindu Law of succession inapplicable in regard eo the 
devolution of shebaitship. Therefor'e, the defendant and other descenda11ts of 
the testator became ctrshebaits of the deity by the operation of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.