Deceased ruled as shebait, not trustee of Mukhram property. Right of residence not part of estate value.

The court held that the deceased was only a shebait and not a trustee of the Mukhram property. Shebaitship was considered a property, but the right of residence was not included in the estate value. The residential portion occupied by the deceased did not pass on death. Each party was to bear its costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was only a shebait and not also a trustee of the Mukhram property.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the shebaitship is a property, the value of which has to be included in the principal value of the estate left by the deceased.
3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the residential portion of the Mukhram property occupied by the deceased passed on the death of the deceased and the value thereof was includible in the principal value of the estate left by the deceased.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was only a shebait and not also a trustee of the Mukhram property:
The court examined the deeds and the intent of the original dedicator, Raja Shewbux Bagla, who dedicated the properties to the deities and appointed shebaits to manage the deities. The Tribunal concluded that the expressions "shebait" and "trustee" were used indiscriminately without precise import, and the late Raja merely intended to dedicate the properties to the deities, with shebaits managing them. The court agreed with the Tribunal's view, noting that the legal title vested in the deities and the shebait was merely a manager. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the deceased was only a shebait and not also a trustee. Question No. 1 was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue.

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the shebaitship is a property, the value of which has to be included in the principal value of the estate left by the deceased:
The court discussed the nature of shebaitship, noting that it involves both office and property elements, with duties being primary and beneficial interests appurtenant to those duties. The court emphasized that the right of residence for the shebait is typically implied unless expressly prohibited in the deed. However, the court found that the right of residence in this case was not expressly prohibited and was necessary for performing the duties of the shebait. The court concluded that while shebaitship is a property, the right of residence was not includible in the principal value of the estate left by the deceased. Question No. 2 was answered in the negative and in favor of the accountable person.

3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the residential portion of the Mukhram property occupied by the deceased passed on the death of the deceased and the value thereof was includible in the principal value of the estate left by the deceased:
The court considered whether the right of residence in the debuttar property could be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased under Section 5 of the Estate Duty Act. The court noted that the right of residence was associated with the duties of the shebait and was not a separate heritable property. The court referred to various decisions and concluded that the right of residence was only for the performance of duties and not a property passing on death. Therefore, the value of the residential portion was not includible in the principal value of the estate. Question No. 3 was answered in the negative and in favor of the accountable person.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the deceased was only a shebait and not a trustee, the right of residence was not includible in the principal value of the estate, and the residential portion of the Mukhram property did not pass on the death of the deceased. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

---