1951 (5) TMI 11 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court grants plaintiff joint shebaitship rights over deity property

ANGURBALA MULLICK Versus DEBABRATA MULLICK

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to joint shebaitship with the defendant regarding the deity Sree Sree Nitto Gopal Jew. The court ... - Issues Involved:1. Entitlement of the plaintiff to act as shebait.2. Applicability of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act to shebaitship.3. Construction of the indenture regarding the devolution of shebaitship.4. Plaintiff's right of residence in the property.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement of the Plaintiff to Act as Shebait:The primary issue was whether the plaintiff, the widow of Mrityunjoy Mullick, was entitled to act as the shebait of the deity Sree Sree Nitto Gopal Jew, either solely or jointly with the defendant, her step-son. The trial court held that the plaintiff was neither the sole shebait nor entitled to shebaitship jointly with the defendant. This decision was affirmed by the appellate court, which noted that the plaintiff's claim to act as a sole shebait was not seriously challenged. The appellate court also rejected the plaintiff's claim to joint shebaitship, relying on the Federal Court's decision in Umayal Achi v. Lakshmi Achi, which held that succession to shebaitship was not affected by the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act.2. Applicability of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act to Shebaitship:The plaintiff argued that the shebaitship should devolve upon her and the defendant jointly under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, as she was an heir of Mrityunjoy. The defendant contended that the Act did not apply to shebaitship, which is a unique form of property. The court examined the provisions of the Act and concluded that the term 'property' in the Act did include shebaitship, as shebaitship is recognized as a form of property in Hindu law. The court also noted that the Act was intended to give better rights to women in respect of property, and there was no reason to exclude shebaitship from its scope.3. Construction of the Indenture Regarding the Devolution of Shebaitship:The indenture executed by Nitto Sundari and Mrityunjoy provided for the devolution of shebaitship. The plaintiff argued that the shebaitship should devolve upon the heirs of Mrityunjoy, including herself, as Kiranbala, the wife mentioned in the indenture, had predeceased Mrityunjoy. The defendant contended that the indenture intended for the issue of Mrityunjoy to have preference in succession to shebaitship. The court held that the word 'heirs' in the indenture should be given its ordinary meaning, which includes all persons entitled to inherit under the law. The proviso in the indenture, which allowed Mrityunjoy to appoint a shebait in the absence of issue, did not limit the meaning of 'heirs' to issue only. Therefore, the plaintiff, as an heir, was entitled to joint shebaitship with the defendant.4. Plaintiff's Right of Residence in the Property:The trial court had granted the plaintiff a right of residence in the property at 14 Syakrapara Lane, which was not disturbed on appeal. The appellate court affirmed this decision, and the Supreme Court also upheld the plaintiff's right of residence in the property.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, except for the declaration of the plaintiff's right of residence. It declared that the plaintiff was entitled to joint shebaitship with the defendant. The taxed costs of both parties in all courts were directed to be paid out of the debutter estate.