SRI SANKARESWAR MAHADEB Vs. BHAGABATI DIBYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for having it declared that the transfer of the shebaiti right along with the properties attached thereto by the widow of the last shebait, Chemai Kar, who died nine years ago, is void, and that on account of such transfer the widow had committed a breach of trust which disentitled her to continue as a trustee any longer and in that event for recovery of the shelat right of the plaintiffs. The transfer was in favour of one of the co- shebaits, belonging to the Kar family, that is, the descendant of the original donee in whose favour the endowment was made. The suit was resisted on the ground that the plaintiffs, who are daughters of Chemai, had no loous standi to bring the suit, that the transfer was justified by legal necessity, and that, in any event, the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiffs were not members of the Kar family and as such had no right of inheritance with regard to the right of shebaitship.

(2.) While considering issue No. 2 as framed by the trial Court which runs: "Have the plaintiffs any locus standi to file this suit?", the learned Munsif came to a finding, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, that since the establishment of the endowment, which took place in the year 1754, the shebaiti right had never gone out of the Kar family either by inheritance or by any means whatsoever; and secondly, he found that it was the custom or usage prevalent in this institution that nobody other than a member of the Kar family cari perform the sheba puja, or, in other words, the services of the deity. Because of this finding in combination with the finding that there has been no instance of any succession by an outsider to the shebaitship, he held that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to bring the suit. On the other issue, namely, whether the sale was valid, he came to a finding that it was void, there being no necessity for such a sale.

(3.) The plaintiffs took up an appeal against this decree of the learned Munsif, and the learned District Judge agreed with the learned Munsif that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to bring the suit as they had no vested or contingent right of succession to the shebaitship. It would be worth while to quote a passage from the judgment of the learned District Judge by which he disposed of this issue before him: The next point to be considered is whether as these appellants have married out of the Kar family they have no locus standi to file this suit. The learned Munsif has discusaed this matter at some length and a certain amount of evidence has been let in. It does not seem that this evidence is particularly conclusive. In point of fact the appellants have not been able to show that any woman born in the Kar family but married out of it ever became a shebait and the respondents have not been able to show that any such woman has ever been definitely excluded. There was evidence by a number of people on behalf of the respondents that no person other than members of the Kar family could be shebaits. It is clear that the shebayati right has never got out of the Kar family and it is hardly likely that in the course of the 200 years during which this temple has existed that the case of a member of the Kar family dying leaving only daughters behind him has never arisen. The balance of the evidence is against the appellants. Further it is the view of any legal system, not solely the Hindu system, that a woman who marries becomes a member of her husband's family and ceases to be a member of her father's family. I think it is reasonably clear that people who have ceased to be members of a family have no further connexion with it. I therefore uphold the finding of the learned Munsif that the appellants could not maintain the suit.