Sheitbaitship as property under Hindu succession law: widow held entitled to joint shebaitship with the son.

Sheitbaitship was treated as a proprietary right capable of succession under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, because it carries a beneficial interest in debutter property and the Act did not indicate any exclusion of that right. The widow was therefore entitled to succeed to the shebaitship. The deed of endowment also did not exclude her, as the words "heirs of the said Mrityunjoy" were construed as words of devolution and the proviso was only contingent on a failure of issue, which did not occur since he left a son. The widow was thus entitled to joint shebaitship with the son, and the appeal was allowed in material part.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether shebaitship is property within the meaning of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, so that a widow can succeed to it; (ii) whether the deed of endowment excluded the widow from succeeding as joint shebait with the son.

Issue (i): Whether shebaitship is property within the meaning of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, so that a widow can succeed to it.

Analysis: Shebaitship was treated as a proprietary right, though blended with office and religious duty, because it carries a beneficial interest in debutter property and follows the ordinary rules of Hindu succession unless the founder has otherwise directed. The Act used the wide expression "any property" and nothing in its preamble, section 3(3), or section 5 showed an intention to exclude shebaitship. The limited estate concept under the Act did not prevent succession to a shebaitship, since female succession to such right was already recognised under Hindu law and the Act altered the general law of inheritance.

Conclusion: The widow was entitled to rely on the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 for succession to the shebaitship.

Issue (ii): Whether the deed of endowment excluded the widow from succeeding as joint shebait with the son.

Analysis: The words "heirs of the said Mrityunjoy" were read in their ordinary sense as words of devolution and not of gift. The proviso was held to be a contingent exception operating only if Mrityunjoy died without issue and without making the specified arrangements. Since he in fact left a son, the contingency did not arise, and the main clause governed succession. On that construction, the widow was not excluded from taking with the heir in the line of succession.

Conclusion: The deed did not exclude the widow, and she was entitled to joint shebaitship with the son.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the concurrent refusals of the courts below were set aside in material part, and the widow's right to joint shebaitship was declared while the residence declaration already granted below was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Shebaitship, when carrying a beneficial proprietary interest, is property for succession purposes unless the founder's deed clearly provides otherwise, and a proviso contingent on a failure of issue cannot override the general line of devolution when the contingency never occurs.

---