1946 (6) TMI 10 - HC - Indian Laws

Founder cannot alter temple succession rules without express reservation of power in original deed

Radhika Mohan Nandy Versus Amrita Lal Nandy and Ors.

The HC ruled on two appeals arising from a suit regarding shebaitship succession. The founder had executed two deeds - the first appointing male ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:(a) Whether the founder of a debottar (dedicated religious) estate can validly alter the line of succession of shebaits (temple managers or trustees) appointed by a prior deed of dedication (arpannama) without an express reservation of such power in the original deed.(b) Whether the provision in the original deed restricting shebaitship to male descendants is valid in law, and if invalid, whether the founder can make a fresh appointment of shebaits by a subsequent deed.(c) Whether, upon failure or invalidity of the original succession provisions, the shebaitship rights devolve according to ordinary law of succession among all heirs.(d) Whether misconduct by a shebait, including acts committed prior to officially assuming office, can justify removal from the office under the terms of the arpannama.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) and (b): Validity of the second arpannama and the power of the founder to alter the line of successionThe legal framework governing dedications (debottar) and appointments of shebaits is well established by prior Calcutta High Court decisions and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The principle is that a dedication of property to a deity is irrevocable and that the rules laid down by the founder at the time of dedication regulating succession to the shebaitship form an integral part of the gift. Unless the founder expressly reserves the power to alter or revoke these rules, the original line of succession remains binding and cannot be changed by a subsequent deed.Precedents cited include the decisions in Gouri Kumari v. Ramanimoyi Dassee and Narayan v. Bhukanmohini, which affirm that absent express reservation, the founder cannot alter the appointment of shebaits once made. The Judicial Committee's observation in Gossamee Sri Greedharjee v. Roman Lallji was also relied upon, emphasizing that the conditions attached to such gifts must be observed if the gift is accepted.In the present case, the first deed of arpannama restricted shebaitship to male descendants, a provision which both courts below found to be invalid in law. The plaintiffs contended that because the original succession rule was invalid, the founder had the right to make a fresh appointment by the second arpannama, which limited succession to sons by the second wife only.The Court analyzed whether the invalidity of the original succession rule confers on the founder the right to alter succession by a subsequent instrument without express reservation. The Court held that the failure or invalidity of the original succession provisions does not create a right in the founder to make a fresh disposition of shebaitship. Instead, upon failure of the original disposition, the shebaitship rights devolve by operation of ordinary law of succession among all heirs of the founder.The Court reasoned that the rules of succession laid down by the founder at the time of dedication are irrevocable unless expressly reserved otherwise. The second arpannama, lacking such express reservation, could not validly alter the line of succession. The Court relied on the principle that the conditions of the gift, including succession rules, form an integral part of the dedication and must be respected.Consequently, the Court upheld the view of the District Judge that the first deed's appointment of shebaits could not be altered by the founder by any subsequent document, even if the original succession rule was invalid.Issue (c): Devolution of shebaitship rights upon failure of original dispositionThe Court held that where the original disposition of shebaitship fails or is invalid, the rights devolve according to the ordinary law of succession. This means that all heirs of the founder, including those from the first and second wives, are entitled to act as shebaits. This principle was supported by the precedent in Ganesh Chunder v. Lal Behary Dhur.The Court rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the second deed created a new valid line of succession excluding the heirs of the first wife. Instead, the Court confirmed that the shebaitship rights revert to the founder's heirs generally under succession law.Issue (d): Removal of a shebait on grounds of misconductThe arpannama contained provisions allowing removal of a shebait if guilty of misconduct. The defendant 1, a son by the first wife and admitted shebait under the first deed, was alleged to have committed acts of misconduct including misappropriation, waste of debottar property, and even physical assault on his father.The trial Court found these acts to constitute misconduct and held that defendant 1 was not entitled to remain as shebait. The District Judge concurred, ordering removal of defendant 1 from shebaitship effective from the founder's death.On appeal, defendant 1 argued that misconduct prior to officially assuming office as shebait could not justify removal, as he did not commit any bad acts after becoming shebait. The Court rejected this narrow interpretation, holding that the terms of the arpannama did not limit removal to misconduct occurring only after appointment. The Court emphasized that the misconduct found was grave and included acts adverse to the deity's interest.The Court upheld the removal, affirming that misconduct, regardless of timing relative to formal assumption of office, justified removal under the arpannama's terms.Treatment of competing arguments: The plaintiffs argued for the validity of the second arpannama and exclusive shebaitship rights, but the Court found the original succession rules binding and the second deed ineffective. Defendant 1 contested removal on procedural grounds, but the Court prioritized substantive misconduct findings over technical timing arguments.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'A dedication of a property to a deity is irrevocable, and the rules, if any, laid down by the founder at the time of dedication regulating succession to the office of the shebait should be deemed to be irrevocable also unless the power of revocation is reserved by the grantor.''When the founder of an endowment dedicates properties to a deity and appoints a shebait or lays down the order of succession to a shebaitship, he makes a gift with a condition attached, and that the Deity or those who speak for him on earth need not take advantage of the gift; but that if the gift is taken, and the condition insisted on, it must be observed.''The condition relating to the rule of succession of shebaitship laid down by the grantor, when he makes the grant, forms an integral part of the dedication itself.'The Court conclusively determined that the founder cannot alter the line of succession of shebaits by a subsequent deed without express reservation of such power, even if the original succession rule is invalid. Upon failure of the original disposition, the shebaitship rights devolve according to ordinary succession law among all heirs.Regarding misconduct, the Court held that the shebait may be removed for misconduct committed at any time if it adversely affects the office or estate, and such removal is justified under the terms of the arpannama.Accordingly, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal seeking exclusive shebaitship rights under the second deed and upheld the removal of defendant 1 for misconduct, confirming the District Judge's decision.