Testamentary devolution of shebaitship upheld where a will transfers temple management after death, not as an inter vivos transfer.

The right to manage a private family temple and the office of shebaitship can devolve by testamentary succession where the founder's intention and the family arrangement support that devolution. Shebaitship, though involving duties, also carries a proprietary interest and is heritable; a will takes effect only on death and is not an inter vivos transfer. For that reason, the prohibition in Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply. The disposition was also not shown to be opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The will was therefore valid, and the succession to management and shebaitship was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the right to manage a temple and shebaitship can devolve by testamentary succession, and whether such a disposition is hit by the prohibition against transfer under Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act.

Analysis: The trust was a private family trust, and the arrangement regarding management had long been accepted by the founder's family and acted upon through prior decrees and partition arrangements. Shebaitship, though involving duties of office, also carries a proprietary interest and is heritable. A will operates as a testamentary disposition taking effect after death and is not a transfer inter vivos. On that footing, the bar in Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply. The arrangement was also not shown to be opposed to public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The earlier authorities relied upon by the appellants did not displace the settled position that a valid testamentary devolution of shebaitship is permissible where the founder's intention and the family arrangement support it.

Conclusion: The will was valid in law, and the right to manage the temple and shebaitship could devolve by testamentary succession.

---