Holding

A will may validly bequeath the proprietary right of shebaitship in a private family temple, and the will of Lakshmanan Chettiar is valid, so the scheme of management stands.

Summary

The case concerned a private family temple, Pechiamman Temple, whose management rights were disputed among two branches of the founding family. The plaintiff sought to invalidate the will of Lakshmanan Chettiar, arguing that the right to manage the temple (shebaitship) could not be transferred by testament. The trial court upheld the will and the heir's right to manage the temple for a stipulated period; the High Court initially held the will invalid but later the Division Bench affirmed its validity and the scheme of management. The Supreme Court examined whether shebaitship is a transferable property and whether a will can validly bequeath such a right, considering Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act and public‑policy limits under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. It held that a will is not a transfer, the bar of Section 6(d) does not apply, and shebaitship, being a proprietary right, may be bequeathed, provided it does not contravene public policy. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the scheme of management upheld.

Issues considered

Can the right to manage a private family temple (shebaitship) be a subject‑matter of testamentary succession?
Is the will executed by Lakshmanan Chettiar valid under the Transfer of Property Act and Indian Contract Act?
Does Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act bar the disposition of shebaitship by will?
Is the scheme of management framed by the High Court legally sustainable?

Legislation cited

Subjects

private trustshebaitshiptemple managementtestamentary successionwill validityTransfer of Property ActIndian Contract Actscheme of managementpartition deed

Judgment

.rr

A S. RATHINAM@ KUPPAMUTHU AND ORS.
v.
-- "
L.S. MARIAPPAN AND·ORs.

MAY 18,2007

B r-)l
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] I

.,, l
.
y'
Wills:

Private family temple-Right to manage and/or shebaitship-
c Testamentary succession-Subject-matter of-A private family temple known.
as 'Pechiamman Temple' was founded by one PC who had two sons, 'LP' and r-
'S'-One 'T', son of 'S', filed a suit which was decreed and the said decree
had attained finality, pursuant whereto the branch of 'S' became entitled to _,,
a right of term of management for a period of two years-Subsequently, 'f:P'
D and his two sons, however, entered into a partition deed for division of their
properties including the terms of management of the suit temple and its ,.<.
properties-It was agreed that 'LP' himself would hold the posts of 'pujari' -t
as well as trustee for two years, whereas his two sons would hold the same
for a period of eight months each- 'LP' executed a will bequeathing his
share in favour of his son 'C'-After the death of 'LP', 'C' had been acting
E as a 'Pujari' as also a trustee for a period of sixteen months and 'S' and his
sons had been managing the said properties for a period of eight months-
'C' died, leaving behind defendant No. I as his heir and legal representative-
'S' also had executed a will in favour of his sons-For framing a scheme in
respect of the said properties, a suit was filed by the plaintiffe against 'T' and . '
F others, which was dismissed -An appeal was preferred there against- '
However, after the death of 'C ', the sons of 'S 'filed a suit, inter a/ia, praying ·~
for a declaration that defendant No. I was not the legal heir of 'C'-Validity
of the will executed by 'LP' was also put in question-1he trial court, while
holding defendant No. I to be the son of 'C', also upheld the validity of the
will executed by 'LP '-An appeal was filed against the said decision of the
G trial court-Both the appeals were heard together by a Single Judge of the
High Court who, while holding the will to be not valid in law, directed a
scheme to be framed in respect of the management of the said properties- ..
A. Letters Patent Appeal was filed by defendant No. I aggrieved by the Y"

direction to frame a. scheme-He also preferred a _Letters Patent Appeal

H 568

.f
S. RATHINAM@KUPPAMUTHU v.L.S. MARIAPPAN 569
against that part of the finding of the Single Judge that the will executed by A
~
- 'LP' was not valid in law-Defendant No. 4 also preferred a Letters Patent
Appeal questioning the framing of the scheme-Plaintiffe also preferred a
cross-objection as against the finding that defendant No. 1 was the son of
'C'-The appeals and the cross-objection were heard together-It was
accepted before the Division Bench that the scheme framed pursuant to the
decision of the Single Judge was working satisfactorily and no interference B
t
therein was called for-The finding of the Single Judge that respondent No.
~
1 was the son of 'C' was also riorseriously disputed-Jn regard to the
~
validity of the will, however, the Division Bench held the same to be valid-
.... Consequently, it was held that respondent No. 1 was entitled to he in the
management of the suit temple and its properties for a total period of sixteen c
months within 24 months allotted to the branch of 'LP '-Correctness of-
Held: The trust in question is a private trust-As a private trust, the terms
and conditions of the management of the temple, would, therefore, be subject
to the desire of the founder ofthe trust-No document in writing was produced
in this behalf-A will denotes a testamentary document-It mean a legal
declaration of the intention of a testator with respect to his property-It is D
not a transfer but a mode of devolution-A will not being a transfer, the bar
~'
t contained in Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act will have no
application-Hence, 'shebaitship' is an inheritable right and is capable of
being transferred

A private family temple known as 'Pechiamman Temple' was founded
E
by one PC who had two sons, 'LP' and 'S'. One 'T', son of 'S', filed a suit
which was decreed and the said decree had attained finality, pursuant whereto
the branch of'S' became entitled to a right of term of management for a period
of two years. Subsequently, 'LP' and his two sons, however, entered into a
partition deed for division of their properties including the terms of F
management of the suit temple and its properties. It was agreed that 'LP'
--'r himself would hold the posts of 'pujari' as well as trustee for two years,
whereas his two sons would hold the same for a period of eight months each.

'LP' executed a will bequeathing his share in favour of his son 'C'. After
the death of 'LP', 'C' had been acting as a 'Pujari' as also a trustee for a G
period of sixteen months and 'S' and his sons had been managing the said
properties for a period of eight months. 'C' died, leaving behind respondent
~·
No. 1 as his heir and legal representative. 'S' also had executed a will in favour
of his sons.

H
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.
·.
('~

A For framing a scheme in respect of the said properties, a suit w~s ~led
by the appellants against 'T' and others, which was dismissed. An appeal was r
t
preferred there against.

However, after the death of 'C', the sons of 'S' filed a suit, inter alia,
praying for a declaration that respondent No. 1 was not the legal heir of 'C'.
B Validity of the will executed by 'LP' was also put in question. The trial court,
while holding respondent No. 1 to be the son of 'C', also upheld the validity of
i;
the will executed by 'LP'. An appeal was filed against .the said decision of the
trial court. '1
y

c CourtBoth the appeals were heard together by a Single Judge of the High
who, while holding the will to be not valid in law, directed a scheme to
be framed in respect of the management of the said properties.

A Letters Patent Appeal was filed by respondent No. 1 aggrieved by the
direction to frame a scheme. He also preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against
that part of the finding of the Single Judge that the will executed by 'LP' was
D
not valid in law. Respondent No. 4 also preferred a Letters Patent Appeal
questioning the framing of the scheme. Appellants also preferred a cross- A
objection as against the finding that respondent No. 1 was the son of 'C'. The 'f-

appeals and the cross-objection were heard together.

E It was accepted before the Division Bench that the scheme framed
pursuant to the decision of the Single Judge was working satisfactorily and
no interference therein was called for. The finding of the Single Judge that
respondent No. 1 was the son of 'C' was also not seriously disputed. In regard
to the validity of the will, however, the Division Bench held the same to be
valid. Consequently, it was held that respondent No. 1 was entitled to be in the
F management of the suit temple and its properties for a total period of sixteen
months within 24 months allotted to the branch of 'LP'. Hence the appeal.
~
The following question arose before the Court:-

Whether the right to manage a temple and/or 'shebaitship' can be a
G subject-matter of testamentary succession?
""
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The trust in question is a private trust. As a private trust, the f
\
terms and conditions of the management of the temple, would, therefore, be
H subject to the desire of the founder of the trust. No document in writing was
;,.

t-
S. RATHINAM @KUPPAMUfHU v.L.S. MARIAPPAN 571

produced in this behalf. The parties, however, understood the will of the founder A
of the trust to the effect that holding of the office of' Pujariship' as also the
trusteeship for a term would be permissible in law. It was so determined in
the suit. (Para 15] (576-F-G)

Kakinada Annadana Samajam v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious
and Charitable Endowments, [1970) 3 SCC 359 and Angurbala Mullick v. B
Debabrata Mullick, (1951) SCR 125, referred to.

"''y 2. The very fact that both the branches had agreed to a term of
management of two years each and had given effect to the decree passed in
the said suit is a pointer in that behalf. Furthermore, 'LP' and his two sons C
also executed a deed of partition. It was agreed to by the parties to the said
deed of partition that each of them would hold the office of 'Pujariship' and
trusteeship for a period of eight months. [Para 16) (576-G-H; 577-A]

3. The plaintiffs, in the suit, claimed relief on the ground that upon the
death of 'C', his right has vested in term as reversioners, contending that D
respondent No. 1 was not his son. Once a right of reversion in the office of
the 'Pujariship' for a particular period, namely, sixteen months in a period of
two years is claimed, the existence of right in 'C' could not have been disputed.
In law, the same would be deemed to have been accepted. Unless the
arrangements made by the parties also and/or the devolution of the properties
by reason of the will executed by 'LP' is found to be opposed to 'public policy' E
as envisaged under Section 23 of the Contracts Act, 1872, there does not
exist any legal impediment in giving effect thereto, particularly when the same
would depend upon the desire in that behalf by the founder of the trust.
[Para 18] [577-B-D] •

4. A will denotes a testauentary document. It means a legal declaration F
of the intention of a testator with respect to bis property which he desires to
be carried into effect after his death. It is in its own nature ambulatory and
revocable during his life. [Para 19) [577-E]

Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan, AIR (2004) SC 172, referred to.
G
5. A testator by his will may make any disposition of his property subject
to the condition that the same should not be inconsistent with the laws or
contrary to the policy of the State. A will of a man is the aggregate of his
testamentary intentions so far as they are manifested in writing. It is not a
transfer but a mode of devolution. [Para 21] [578-E] H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A Beru Ram v. Shankar Dass, AIR (1999) J & K 55, approved.

6. Nomination is also permissible being intervivos. A will not being a
transfer, the bar contained in Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act,
1872 will have no application. The finding of the Division Bench of the High
Court that the will is valid in law is correct. (Para 34) (582-F-G)
B
Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick (1951) SCR 125, Narayanam
Seshacharyulu v. Narayanam Venkataccharyulu, AIR (1957) AP 876,
Shambhu Charan Shukla v. Shri Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra Madan Gopalji
Maharaj, (1985) 2 SCC 524, Ranbir Das v. Kalyan Das (1997) 4 SCC 102,
C Kakinada Annadana Samajam v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious and
Charitable Endowments, (1970) 3 SCC 359, Kali Kinkor Ganguly v. Panna
Banerjee, (1974) 2 SCC 563, Rajeshwar v. Gopeshwar, (1908) 35 Cal. 226,
Sovabati Dassi v. Kashi Nath, AIR (1972) Cal 95, Mancharam v. Pranshankar,
(1882) 6 Bom 298, Shyam Sunder v. Mani Mohan, AIR (1976) SC 977 and
Nandlal v. Kesharlal, AIR (1975) Raj 226, referred to.
D
Dr. B. K. Mukherjea: "The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust,
First Edn., p. 228, referred to.

7. Furthermore, the necessity to have a fixed term of management for
the purpose of running the temple in question has been accepted by the family
E for a long time. If it is to be held otherwise, the court will have to disturb even
a binding decree passed by the competent curt of law which is binding
otherwise on the parties, rendered as far back as 1944. It is for the said
purpose that the conduct of the appellants becomes relevant. They not only
accepted the right of the branch 'S' but also accepted the right of 'C'. It has
F not been disputed that 'C' had been exercising the right of 'shebaitship' for
a period of sixteen months in a period of two years for a long time. Once the
finding of the courts below to the effect that respondent No. 1 was his son, his
right of inheritance is, thus, not being disputed, the contentions raised in
this appeal cannot be accepted. (Para 35) (582-H; 583-A-B)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6616 of2002.
G
From the final Judgment and Order dated 09.08.2000 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in L.P.A. No. 62of1991.

V. Prabhakar, Ramjee Prasad, V. Subramani and Revathy Raghavan for
H the Appellants.
S. RATHINAM @ KUPPAMUTHU v. L.S. MARIAPP AN [S.B. SINHA, J.] 573

K.K. Mani, K.B. Sandeep, S. Balaji and S. Srinivasan for the Respondents. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. l. Whether right to manage a temple and/or shebaitship
can be a subject-matter of testamentary succession is the question involved
in this appeal, which arises out of a judgment and decree dated 09.08.2000 B
passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in L.P.A. No. 62
of 1991, affirming a judgment and decree dated 28.01.1991 passed by a learned
Single Judge of the said Court in A.S. No. 661of1979.

2. A private family temple known as 'Pechiamman Temple' was founded
by one Palanichamy Chettiar. The genealogical table of the said Palanichamy C
Chettiar is as under :
PALANICHAMICHETTIAR
-1-

L.P. Lakshmanan Chettiar Shanmugam @ Palanichami Chettiar D
-1- -1- '·
..i;-·---------·----------------------i
Thangam @ Palanichami Chettiar
Shanmugam@ Chellam @ Subbiah
-1-
Palanichami Chettiar (Died) Ramalingam
E

l L.S. Mariappan

-i-·-------------------~---------------i----------·-.r··----------i-------------·-------i

Rathinam @ Lakshmanan Chellam @ Subbiah Patchaimuthu Shanmugham
Kuppumuthu (Died) Palanisami F
~ 3. The founder of the trust dedicated properties for the maintenance of
the temple and performance of Pujas consisting of four shop rooms in the
front and a few residential buildings at the back of the temple. Disputes and
differences having been arisen between the two branches of the family,
Thangam son of Shanmugam filed a suit, which was marked as O.S. No. 9 of G
1943. The said suit was decreed, relevant portion whereof reads as under:

"Clause (iii) : That the C schedule properties be managed in turns
betwe:en the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant on the one hand and
Defendants 1 and 3 to 9 on the other, each branch for a period of two
years. .H-
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A Clause (iv) : That the said two branches also be in possession during
their term of management of the temple jewels mentioned as items l
to 6 at page 13 of the first Defendant's written statement (specified
hereunder) in addition to amend as per order in LA. No. 375 of 1944
dated 15.04.1944) the bronze-Soodam, thattu with Kalias referred tol in
the same page of the written statement."
B
4. The said decree has attained finality, pursuant whereto the branch
of Shanmugam became entitled to a right of term of management for a period
of two years. On or about 04.07.1956, L.P. Lakshmanan Chettiar and his two
sons, however, entered into a partition deed for division of their properties
C including the terms of management of the suit temple and its properties. It was
agreed that Lakshmanan Chettiar himself shall hold the posts of pujari as well'
as trustee for two years, whereas his two sons shall hold the same for a period
of eight months each.

5. In respect of the properties in question, it was averred :
D "No. l and 2 party shall hold, possess and enjoy the rent and
income derived from the C Schedule property."

6. Lakshmanan Chettiar executed a will on or about24.05.1962 bequeathing
his share in favour of his son Chellam. He died on or 8bout I0.04. I973. It
E is not in dispute that after the death of Lakshmanan Chettiar, Chellam had
been acting as a Pujari as also a trustee for a period of sixteen months and
Shanmugam and his sons had been managing the said properties for a period
of eight months. Chellam died on I0.02.1980, leaving behind Respondent
No. I herein as his heir and legal representative, Shanmugam also appears to
have executed a will in favour of his sons.
F
7. For framing a scheme in respect of the said properties, a suit was filed
by the appellants against the said Thangam and others, which was marked
as O.S. No.222 of 1975. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the said
suit by a judgment and order dated 19.02.I979. An appeal was preferred
there- against, which was marked as A.S. No. 661 of 1979, to which we shall
G advert a little later.

8. However, after the death of Chellam, the sons of Shanmugam filed a
suit, which was marked as O.S. No. 83 of I982, inter a/ia, praying for a
declaration that Respondent No. I herein was not the legal heir of Chellam @
Subbiah. Validity of the said will dated 24.05.1962 was put in question. The
H learned Principal Subordinate Judge while holding Respondent No. I to be the
S. RATHINAM@KUPPAMUTHU v.L.S. MARIAPPAN [S.B. SINHA, J.] 575

son of Chellam, also upheld the validity of the said will executed by A
Lakshmanan Chettiar. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment
and decree dated 13.03.1986, an appeal came to be preferred by the appellants
herein, which was marked as A.S. No.1363 of 1988. Both the appeals were
heard together by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. While holding
the will to be not valid in law, a scheme was directed to be framed in respect B
of the management of the said properties. A Letters Patent Appeal being No.
61 of 1991 was filed by Respondent No. l herein, aggrieved by the direction
to frame a scheme. He also preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against that part
of the finding of the learned Single Judge that the will executed by Lakshmanan
Chettiar was not valid in law. Respondent No. 4 herein also preferred a Letters
Patent Appeal, which was marked as L.P.A. No. 128of1991, questioning the C
framing of scheme. Appellants herein also preferred a cross-objection, which
was marked as Cross Objection No. 106 of 1995 as against the finding that
Respondent No. 1 was the son' of Chellam @ Subhiah. The appeals and the
cross-objection were heard together.

9. It was accepted before the Division Bench that the scheme framed D
pursuant to the decision of the learned Single Judge was working satisfactorily
and no interference therein was called for. The finding of the learned Single
Judge to the effect that Respondent No. 1 was the son of Chellam was also
not seriously disputed. In regard to the validity of the will, however, tlie
Division Bench held the same to be valid. Consequently, it was held that E
Respondent No. l was entitled to be in the management of the suit temple
and its properties for a total period of sixteen months within 24 months
allotted to the branch of Lakshmanan Chettiar.

10. Three of the plaintiffs are before us, being aggrieved by and
dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree. No appeal has been preferred F
as against rejection of the said Cross Objection No. 106 of 1995 or dismissal
of the Letters Patent Appeal arising out of A.S. No. 661 of 1979.

11. Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in
support of the appeal, submitted :

(i)
G
The right to manage a property and pujariship being a personal
right, cannot be transferred being not transferable within the
meaning of Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act;

(il) The purported will executed by Lakshmanan Chettiar dated
24.05.1962 must be held to be invalid in law.
H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A (iit) The right to hold the office of a pujari and a trust being a
personal right, would come to an end with the death of the
holder of the office, whereupon the same would devolve upon
his heirs and legal representatives. Reliance, in this behalf,
has been placed on Kakinada Annadana Samajam etc. v. The
Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments,
B Hyderabad & Others etc., (1971) 2 SCJ 527: (1970) 3 SCC 359.

12. Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, on the other hand, would support the judgment. The learned
counsel would cont'.!nd that the issue is covered by a decision of this Court
C in Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick, (1951) SCR 1125.

13. It was urged that the appellants are estopped and precluded from
questioning the validity or otherwise of the will as even Shanmugam had also
executed a will. It was pointed out that the will executed by Lakshmanan
Chettiar on 24.05.1962 was given effect to by the parties· on his death which
D took place on l 0.04.1973 and only upon the death of Chellam, the appellants
herein claimed a right of reversion therein on the premise that Respondent No.
1 herein was not the son of Chellam.

14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4
herein, would submit that the disputes and differences arose between the
E parties in regard to not handing over the possession of the properties in terms
of the judgment and decree passed by the competent courts and in that view
of the matter, this Court may issue an appropriate direction.

15. The trust in question is a private trust. As a private trust, the terms
and conditions of the management of the temple, would, therefore, be subject
F to the desire of the founder of the trust. No document in writing was
produced in this behalf. The parties, however, understood the will of the
founder of the trust to the effect that holding of the office of Pujariship as
also ·the trusteeship for a term would be permissible in law. It was so
determined in the suit by the learned Subordinate Judge in O.S. No. 9of1943.
G 16. The very fact that both the branches had agreed to a term of
management of two years each and had given effect to the decree passed by
the learned Subordinate Judge in the said suit is a pointer in that behalf.
Furthermore, Lakshmanan Chettiar and his two sons also executed a deed of
partition on 04.07.1956. It was agreed to by the parties to the said deed of
H partition that each ofthern would hold the office of Pujariship and trusteeship
S. RATHINAM@KUPPAMUTHU v.L.S. MARIAPPAN [S.B. SINHA, J.] 577
..
for a period of eight months. A
17. The issue must, therefore, be determined in the aforementioned
backdrop of events.

18. Before, however, we advert to the legal issue, we may notice that
the plaintiffs in the suit claimed relief on the ground that upon the death of B
Chellam, his right has vested in them as reversioners, contending that
Respondent No. I herein was not his son. Once a right of reversion in the
said office for a particular period, namely, sixteen months in a period of two
years is claimed, the existence of right in Chellam could not have been
disputed. In law, the same would be deemed to have been accepted. Unless
the arrangements made by the parties also and/or the devolution of the C
properties by reason of the said will executed by Lakshmanan Chettiar is
found to be opposed to 'public policy' as envisaged under Section 23 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872, there does not exist any legal impediment in giving
effect thereto, particularly when the same would depend upon the desire in
that behalf by the founder of the trust.
D
19. A will denotes a testamentary document. It means a legal declaration
of the intention of a testator with respect to his property which he desires
to be carried into effect after his death. It is in its own nature ambulatory
and revocable during his life.

20. In Uma Devi Nambiar and Ors. v. T.C. Sidhan (Dead), AIR (2004) E
SC 1772, it was held :

"10. Will is a translation of the Latin word" voluntas ",which was
a term used in the text of Roman law to express the intention of a
testator. It is of significance that the abstract term has come to mean
that document in which the intention is contained. The same has been F
the case with several other English law terms, the concrete has
superseded the abstract - obligation, bond, contract, are examples
(William: Wills and Intestate Succession , p. 5). The word ''testament"
is derived from "testatio mentis ",it testifies the determination of the
mind. A Will is thus defined by Ulpians as " Testamentum est mentis
nostrae justa contestatio in id so/lemniter facta to post mortem G
nostrum valeat . " Modastinus defines it by means of voluntas . It is
" voluntatis nostrae justa sententia, de eo quod quis post mortem
suam fieri vult (or ve/it) "; the word "justa " implying in each, that,
in order to be valid, the testament must be made in compliance with
the forms oflaw. It means, "the legal declaration of a man's intentions, H
which will be performed after his death". A last Will and testament is
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A defined to be "the just sentence of our Will, touching what we would
have done after our death". Every testament is consummated by
death, and until he dies, the Will of a testator is ambulatory. Nam
omne testamentum morte consummatum est; et voluntae testamentoric
est embulatoria usque od mortem . (For, where a testament is, there -
must also ofnecessity be death of testator; for, a testament is of force
B atter men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the
testator liveth.) A "Will", says Jannan, "is an instrument by which a
person makes a disposition of his property to take effect after his
decease, and which is in its own nature ambulatory and revocable
during his life." (Jarman on Wills, lst Edn., p. 11.) This ambulatory
l ...
c character of a Will has been often pointed out as its prominent
characteristic, distinguishing it, in fact, from ordinary disposition by _
a living person's deed, which might, indeed postpone the beneficial
possession or even a vesting until the death of the disposer and yet
would produce such postponement only by its express tenns under ·
an irrevocable instrument and a statement that a Will is final does not
,D import an agreement not to change it. (Schouler: Law of Wills, S. 326).
A Will is the aggregate of man's testamentary intentions so far as
they are manifested in writing, duly executed according to the
statute...... "

41. A testator by his will, may make any disposition ·of his property
E subject to the condition that the same should not be inconsistent with the
laws or contrary to the policy of the State. A will of a man is the aggregate
of his testamentary intentions so far as they are manifested in writing. It. is
not a transfer but a mode of doyolution. [See Beru Ram and Ors v. Shan/car
Dass and Ors., AIR (1999) J&K 55].

F 22. The question as to whether shebaitship can be a subject-matter of
a will came up for consideration before a Four-Judge Bench of this Court in
Angurbala Mullick (supra), wherein it was categorically held :

" ....As the Judicial Committee observed in the above case, in almost
all such endowments the shebait has a share in the usufruct of the
G debutter property which depends upon the terms of the grant or upon
custom or usage. Even where no emoluments are attached to the
office of the shebait, he enjoys some sort of right or interest in· the
endowed property which partially at least has the character of a
proprietary right. Thus, in the conception of shebaiti both the elements
H of office and property, of duties and personal interest, are mixed up
and blended together; and one of the elements cannot be detached

.:
S. RATHINAM @KUPPAMUTHU v.L.S. MARIAPPAN (S.B. SINHA, J.J 579

from the other. It is the presence of this personal or beneficial interest A
in the endowed property which invests shebaitshir with the character
of proprietary rights and attaches to it the legal incidents of property~'

It was also held :

"21. Assuming that the word "property" in Act 18 of 1937 is to B
be interpreted to mean property in its common and ordinarily accepted
sense and is not to be extended to any special or peculiar type of
property, even then we think that the other contention of Mr Tek
Chand is perfectly sound. Succession to shebaitship, even though
there is an ingredient of office in it, follows succession to ordinary or
secular property. It is the general law of succession that governs C
succession to shebaitship as well. While .the general law has now
been changed by reason of Act 18 of 1937, there does not appear to
be any cogent reason why the law as it stands at present should not
be made applicable in the case of devoluton of shebaitship."

23. The principle enunciated therein was considered at some details by D
a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Narayanam
Seshacharyulu and Anr. v. Narayanam Venkataccharyulu, AIR 1957 AP 876,
but it is not necessary to advert thereto in the facts of the present.
-
24. In Shambhu Charan Shukla v. Shri Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra E
Madan Gopalji Maharaj and Anr., [1985] 2 SCC 524, this Court held:

"15. The text of Hindu law and the aforesaid two decisions of this
Court and the earlier -decisfon in Angurba/a Mullick case 2 show that
shebaitship is in the nature of immovable property heritable by the
widow of the last male holder unless there is an usage or custom of · F
a different nature in cases where the· founder has not disposed of the
shebaiti right in the endowment created by him. In the present case
Purushottam Lal has not made any disposition regarding shebaiti right
in his Will, Ext. A-2 dated April 14, 1944 whereby he created the
endowment. No custom or usage to the contrary has been pleaded.
Therefore, the widow Asharfi Devi had succeeded to the shebaiti right G
held by him on his death as a limited owner and that right has become
enlarged into an absolute right by the provisions of Section 14(1) of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and she could transfer that right by
a Will in favour of a person who is not a non-Hindu and who could
get the duties of shebait performed either by himself or by any other H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A suitable person. In these circumstances I hold that the second
respondent has acquired the shebaiti right under the Will Ext. A-6
executed by Asharfi Devi on her death on March 7, 1963. No
interference is called for in this appeal with the judgment of the
learned Single Judge of the High Court. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed with costs."
B
25. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. in his concurdng Judgment stated the law
thus :

" .. .In my opinion it is well-settled by the authorities that shebaitship
is a property which is heritable. The devolution of the office of
c shebait depends on the terms of the deed or the Will or on the
•I

endowment or the act by which the deity was installed and property
consecrated or given to the deity, where there is no provision in the
endowment or in the deed or Will maqe by the founder as to the
succession or where the mode of succession in the deed or the Will
D or endowment comes to an end, the title to the property or to the
management and control of the property as the case may be, follows
the ordinary rules of inheritance according to Hin~u law ...."

26. In Ranbir Das and Anr. etc. v. Kalyan Das andAnr., [1997] 4 SCC
102, this Court stated the law thus :
.E " ... Will in the normal connotation, takes ef_fect after the demise of the
testator. But in the case of nomination of a Shebait, the nomination
takes effect from the date of its execution though it is styled as a Will.
Once it takes effect, the nominee becomes entitled to go into the
office as a Shebait after the demise of the last chela of Harl Dass.
F Under these circumstances, the shebaitship being a property, vests in
Ranbir Dass and he could administer the property and manage the
temple for the purpose of spiritual and other purposes with which Harl
Dass, the original founder had endowed the property to Lord Krishna
and Radha."

G 27. We may notice that Dr. B.K. Mukherjea in his Tagore Law Lectures,
on The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust, , inter alia, observed:

"S.30. Shebit' s right of nominating his successor.- The founder of an
endowment can always confer upon a Shebait appointed by him the
right of nominating his successor. Without such authority expressly
H
S. RA THINAM @KUPPAMUTHU v.L.S. MARIAPPAN [S.B. SINHA, J.] 581

given to him, no Shebait can appoint a successor to succeed to him A
in his office. The power of nomination can be exercised by the
Shebait either during his lifetime or by a will, but he cannot transfer
the right of exercising this power to another person."

28. In the aforementioned backdrop of events, we may test the decisions
relied upon by Mr. Prabhakar. B
29. In Kakinada Annadana Samajam (supra), this Court was concerned
with the question as to whether a right of shebaitship can be held to be a
fundamental right within the meaning of Article 19(l)(t) of the Constitution
of India, as it then stood, and consequently whether the provisions of the
Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Endowments Act (XVII) of C
1966 would be a law within the meaning of clause (5) thereof. It was held
that the trusteeship and pujariship would be a property but not a property
within the meaning of Article 19(1 )( t) of the Constitution oflndia.

30. In Kali Kinkor Ganguly v. Panna Banerjee and Ors., [1974] 2 SCC D
563, although a Division Bench of this Court opined that 'a transfer of shebait
by Will is not permitted because nothing which the shebait has can pass by
his Will which operates only at his death'; but the question as to whether
a will would amount to a transfer or not did not fall for consideration therein.
• The question which arose for consideration was as to whether the right of
shebaitship, temple and the deity installed therein is a transferable. This E
Court while dealing with the said contention noticed :

"14. In the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust, Ffrst Edn,
being the Tagore Law Lectures delivered by Dr B.K. Mukherjea the
statement of law at p. 228 is this:
F
"Although shebaiti right is heritable like any other property, it
lacks the other incident of proprietary right viz. capacity of being
freely transferred by the person in whom it is vested. The reason
is that the personal proprietary interest which the shebait has got
!s ancillary to and inseparable from his duties as a ministrant of
the deity, and a manager of its temporalities. As the personal G
interest cannot be detached from the duties the transfer of
shebaitship would mean a delegation of the duties of the transferor
which would not only be contrary to the express intentions of the
founder but would contravene the policy of Jaw. A transfer of
shebaitship or for the matter of that of any religious office has H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A nowhere been countenanced by Hindu lawyers."

31. However, yet again the court noticed that the right against alienation
had been relaxed by reason of certain circumstances, stating :

"17. The rule against alienation of shebaiti right has been relaxed by
B reason of certain special circumstances. These are classified by Dr
B.K. Mukherjea at p. 231 in his Tagore Law Lectures on the Hindu
Law of Religious and Charitable Trust, First Ecin. under three heads.
The first case is where transfer is not for any pecuniary benefit and
the transferee is the next heir of the transferor or stands in the line
of succession of she baits and suffers from no disqualification regarding
c the performance of the duties. Second, when the transfer is made in
the interests of the deity· itself and to meet some pressing necessity.
Third, when a valid custom .is proved sanctioning alienation of shebaiti
right within a limited circle of purchasers, who are actual or potential
shebaits of the deity or otherwise connected with the family."

D 32. The Calcutta High Court in Rajeshwar v. Gopeshwar, [(1908) 35 Cal.
226] opined that nomination of a successor by will may be permissible under
a usage justifying the same. A somewhat different view was taken by the
same High Court in Sovabati Dassi v. X.ashi Nath, AIR (1972) Cal. 95. The
Bombay High Court, however, took a different view. [See Mancharam v.
E Pranshankar (1882) 6 Born. 298].

33. However, we need not enter into the said question as the law is now·
well-settled in view of the decision of this Court in Shyam Sunder v. Moni
Mohan, AIR (1976) SC 977 [See also Nand/a/ v. Keshar/a/, AIR (1975) Raj.
226).
F
34. Such a nomination is also permissible being intervivos. In view of
the decisions of this Court, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary for
us to consider the decision of the Madras High Court, on which Mr. Prabhakar
has placed strong reHance, as the said decision revolves round the question
as to whether such a right is transferable or not. A will being not a transfer,
G the bar contained in Section 6(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, in our
opinion, will have no application. We, therefore, agree with the findings of
the Division Bench of the High Court that the will is valid in law.

35. Furthermore, the necessity to have a fixed tenn of management for
H the purpose of running the temple in question has been accepted by the
S. RATHINAM@KUPPAMUTHU v.L.S. MARIAPPAN (S.B. SINHA, J.) 583

"'"'-;
family for a long time. If it is to be held otherwise, the court will have to A
disturb even a binding decree passed by the competent court of law which
is binding otherwise on the parties, rendered as far back as in 1944. It is for
the said purpose that the conduct of the appellants becomes relevant. They
not only accepted the right of the branch of Shanmugam but also accepted
~

' the right of Chellam. It has not been disputed that Chellam had been exercising
the right of she baits hip for a period of sixteen months in a period of two years B
for a long time. Once the fin~ing of the courts below to the effect that
Respondent No. 1 was his son, his right of inheritance is, thus, not being
...,_" disputed; in our opinion, the contentions raised in this appeal cannot be
accepted.

36. We, therefore, affirm the findings of the Division Bench of the High
c
Court. The question, however, which remains for consideration would be as
to whether this Court should pass any order directing the parties to hand over
possession on expiry of their term. In law, undoubtedly, they are bound to
do the same. They cannot hold the office more than the period directed by
the court of law. Their terms have to be fixed. We may notice that before D
the Division Bench of the High Court, the parties agreed to the following :
·-+ "a) The branch represented by Ramtingam (applicant herein) would
manage and administer the temple and its properties for a p~riod
of two years.
b) In so far as the other branch consisting of 1st respondent on one
E
side and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 on the other, they would be
managing and administering the temple for a period of2 years i.e.
~
one year each."

37. This Court in a contempt proceeding initiated by Respondent No.
F
4, which was marked as Contempt Petition No. 550 of 2004, directed :
._').

"Without going into the allegations and counter allegations made
in the contempt petition, we direct respondent No. 1 to hand over the
possession of the temple in question to the applicant herein on 1 lth
December, 2004 at 11.00 a.m. in the presence of the bailiff of the court G
of Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai who will take inventory of
the movables in the temple and the same shall be signed by the
;.

- applicant herein as well as the 1st respondent in the appeal. The 1st
respondent will also deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- within four weeks
from today. The said amount shall be put in a fIXed deposit in the
H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

,A name of the temple and the Managing Trustee would be entitled to
withdraw only interest thereof. The compliance in this regard shall be
intimated to this Court in the 1st week of January, 2005."

38. Several orders have been passed by this Court from time to time. It
appears that despite such directions, one party or the other claims to hold L

'
B the office despite expiry of the term. In this appeal, as has been suggested
by Mr. Prabhakar, it may not be practicable for us to fix any time for taking
over or handing over of possession. It, however, appears that an execution
case is pending before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.

39. We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction, direct the learned Trial
C Judge, to pass an appropriate order in this behalf. The learned Trial Judge
may pass an appropriate order in regard to the amount deposited by
Respondent No.I pursuant to the said order dated 07.12.2004 or any other
order that may be brought to its notice.

D 40. This appeal is aiismissed with the aforementioned directions with
costs payable by the app~lant in favour of Respondent No. I. Counsel's fee
is assessed at Rs.50,000/-

v.ss. Appeal dismissed.