LexSHAMBHU CHARAN SHUKLA versus THAKUR LADLI RADHA CHANDRA MADAN GOPALJI MAHARAJ & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'A c D E F G H SHAMBHU CHARAN SHUKLA v. THAKURLADLIRADHACHANDRA MADAN GOPALJI MAHARAJ & ANR March 19, 1985 (A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.] Hindu Law: .. ~· " Religious endowment - Founder by will making his wife shebait - No disposition in will regarding the shebaiti right - On death of founder widow succeeding to the shebaiti right - Whether widow could transfer the shebaiti right by her will. Hindu Succeession Act 1956 - Section 14(1}. Shebaitship - Right to - Limited right of Hindu female whether enlarged to the absolute right of the holder. The idol of Gopalji was installed by one Purshottam Lal in his house at Vrindavan, which later became the temple of the deity. The founder who had no issue, performed seva Puja of the deity so 1ong as he was alive and thereafter it was performed by his wife. By his will Ex. A-2,,,.). he dedicated his entire property to the deity, and made his wife the Mohatmim/ ~ Shebait without any power to transfer any property. In accordance with the • directions of her husband, the wife adopted the second respondent by a regis- tered deed after performing the necessary religious ceremonies. After the death of the wife, the appellant in the appeal worked as Pujari in the temple with the consent of the second respondent's guardian and natural father. Later he denied the rights of the second respondent and contended that the founder's • wife executed her last will and testamerit Ex. A~6 bequeathing her bank deposits, government bonds, household articles, utensils etc. to the appellant to be kept by him in his custody, so long as the second respondent was a minor and to be responsible for the seva puja and raj bhog of the deity and the _......_ management of the deity's properties. r · A suit was filed by the respondents, for recovery of possession of the idol and temple of Gopalji and for the money lying in deposit with the bank, the zamindari abolition compensation etc. ' ii. e. SHUKLA v."t: t.;' R. c. M'. o. MAiiAilAI ,,-.TJJe .. tri!ll ~o~it heid the adoption or the second ~espondent to be ctu1y · lluth6rised-and valid and found that the foundef's wife had validly executed . the w_~ll EX. :A-·6, but c'ould not triinsfer the shebaiti rights to the second resPortdeot thereby and that' the second respondent had, ho"wever become the Mohatmim/Shebait by rcasort of the adoption, and found that the moVable' prt?perties a~d the cash claimed by the appellant under the will were the per- sonal Properties of the wife and that the appellant had become entitled to them as··a teiatee under the will and that the other properties belong to the first · respondent-Gopal Ji, and decreed the suit in part. ~....,· In the appeal by the appellant: afld the cross-objections· filed b:Y the '1 second respondent, the additional district judge found that as the adoption was without the· authority of the husband to adopt, it was invalid in· law and following this Courts' decisibn in K.K. Ganguli v Pama-Banerjee, ·AI-R ·J974 S.C R. 1932 held that the second respondent 'had not become shcbait under the wili and allowed the appeal and dismissed the corss-objections and the s1:1it in, . full. In the second appeal, the High Court following this Courts' decision in Angu~ba/a Mullick v. Dehabrata Mu/lick, [1951} 2 S.C R. 1125 that shebaiti is heritabal property, held shebaiti is property & found t~at no restriction had been placed in the will of the founder in regard to the shebaiti"and theref~re the wife· had succeeded to the limited right of she bait as the· heir of her husband and· it became enlarged into an absolut~ right under section 14(1) of the Hindu Sue.:· cession Act, 1956 and that as there was on other heir or successor to the f0under, the wife's appoinment of the second respondent as the shebait'under her Will Ex. A-6 was valid in law. The second appeal was accordingly a110wed•. in part except in respect of certain items enumerated in 'the. plaint, artd cash 'in · fixed deposit with a bank. Dismissing the appeal, to this Court., HELD : (Per Varadarajan J.) 1. The text of Hindu Law and the two decisions of this .Court in Profulla Choronl Requittee v. Satya Chornal Requillee [1979] 3 S.C.R. 431 and Ram Rattan v. Bajrang Lal & Ors., [l978) 3 S.C.R. 963 and the earlier decision in Angurbala Mullick v.Debabrata Mullick, [1951) 2 S,C R. 1125. show that shebait ship iS in the nature of immovable property heritable by t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.