The manager of the Devasthan is known as Shebait in the Northern India and as Dharmkarta in the South. Shebait is that person who serves the deity, consecrated in the temple as a Devata. Shebaitship represents two parts—Maintenance of deity and management thereof. It is not only an office simply but is also accompanied with certain rights.
Image Source: upload.wikimedia.org
In spite of the fact that the position of Shebait is not like the English trustee yet his duties are similar to that of trustee. Shebait owes the duty like the manager of a religious endowment, as per the traditions towards the diety of maintaining and preserving the idol and property.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Supreme Court has held in Prafulla Charan v. Satya Charan, that the property dedicated to an idol vests in it, is an ideal sense only; ex-necessities, the possession and management has to be entrusted to some human agent, called Shebait in the North. The legal character of Shebait cannot be defined with precision and exactituted. Broadly described he is the human ministrant and custodian of the idol as its earthly spokesman, its authorised representative entitled to deal with all its temporal affairs and manage its property.
As regards the administration of the debutter property his position is an analogous to that of a trustee; yet he is not precisely in the position of a trustee in the English sense because under Hindu law, property absolutely dedicated to an idol, and not in the Shebait. Although the debutter never vests in the Shebait, yet peculiarly enough, about every case, the Shebait has a right to a part in the usufruct, the mode of enjoyment and the amount of usufruct depending again on the usage and custom, if not devised by the founder.
A Shebait as manager of the property has the ownership and possession of the property and he can file a suit for the protection and profits of the diety’s property. He can incur debts for the worship of temple, for repair of temple or for the protection of the belongings of the temple or for contesting the suit or saving the property from being sold for the execution of decree. Debt can be incurred according to the needs.
Office of Shebaitship is not heritable as per the rules of Hindu succession.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Right of Shebaits to repeat worship is an immovable property which can only be transferred by a registered will. The office of Shebait is hereditary unless otherwise stipulated or written by the creator of endowment. In the office of Shebait, there is a mixture of office and estate, of personal interest and obligations. One cannot be separated from the other under Hindu law. The Shebaitship has been treated as an immovable property in the Hindu texts and commentaries.
The Calcutta High Court has laid down in its decision in the case, Jagannath Devraj v. Byomkesh Rai, that he may manage the property of the deity as a reasonable man as per his own wishes. Shebaitship is the mixture of rights and duties over the properties of Matha over which the Hindu law of succession applies and which devolves according to the Hindu Succession Act.
Image Source: c2.staticflickr.com
Devolution of Shebaits office:
According to the decisions of the Supreme Court “the office of Shebait is a property. It is heritable property and therefore subject of devolution. If in the endowment the right of devolution of Shebaitship has not been properly described, then in the absence of any customs or usages it devolves among the heirs of the founder.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
A Shebait cannot nominate successor by will unless there be a usage justifying a nomination by will.”
In S. Duthinam alias Kuppam Utha & others v. L.S. Mariappan & others, the Court upheld that shebaitship can be subject-matter of Will and such will be a valid, that will not barred by Transfer of Property Act and it does not apply in Hindu Law.
In Kacha Kant Seva Samity v. Kacha Kant Devi, a plaintiff has claimed that deity in temple was gifted to their ancestor by the King, so it is their private deity and they are the shebaits. He shows the ancient documents for showing appointments of fore-father as Deshmukhya, local persons, testifying that since long plaintiff were performing the puja and offering other services made to Goddess by the devotees. The Supreme Court observed that, due to long possession and services of temple, he is entitled to be declared as de facto Shebaits.
In Shambu Charan Shukla v. Sri Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra Madan Gopal Ji Maharaj case the Supreme Court held that “Shebaitship is in nature of immovable property heritable by the widow of the last male holder unless there is a usage or custom of a different nature in case where the founder has not disposed of the Shebait’s right in the endowment created by him”.
Again the Calcutta High Court in Bhutnath Mandal v. Kalipad Mandal, held that where the founder’s disposition in the deeds of endowment was that after the death of the son of his brother to whom the Shebaitship was bequeathed, his male discendants would become Shebaits one after another excluding the female heirs or their descendants and only after the failure of determination of these previous series of estates the nearest descendant of the founder’s brothers or the seniormost among them if there be more than one of the same class, would become Shebait, the incapacity of the legatee’s line to succeed because of the illegality of such disposition contrary to the Hindu law of inheritance would not entitle any of three nephews of the founder who were alive at the time of deeds of endowment to any benefit under those deeds.
Earlier in an another case Smt. Hiranbala Devi v. Vishnu Pad Bhattacharya, the Calcutta High Court had observed that the executor of a will, who dedicates his property in the name of the deity cannot direct any such order of succession to the office of Shebait which is in violation of general rules of succession.
Where the founder of a religious endowment through a Will appoints A and В on the post of Shebait after the death of his wife and further adds a clause in it that in case of death of A and B, his male descendant in order of seniority would become Shebait, the court held that such a direction would be void.
The aforesaid view has been endorsed by the court in Anath Bandhu Dey v. Krishnalal Das, where the court observed that if the founder of debutter had laid down any mode of devolution of the office of Shebait, the office would devolve according to that mode. In its absence, the office would devolve in accordance with the Hindu Law of Succession i.e., the office of Shebait would be hereditary one. In this case the founder had willed that the existing Shebait was to appoint his immediate successor.
The Shebait appointed his four sons one after another and thereafter created a line of succession contrary to the mode laid down by the founder. It was held that except for the appointment of the Shebait’s eldest son, the other appointments and the line of succession prescribed were invalid. The office held reverted to the heirs of the founder and the sole heir (only son) of the last nominated Shebait could not lay claim to the office since there was no independent gift of the office in his favour.
There can be cases where the succession fails as laid down in the deed or the Shebait has no right to appoint his successor or Shebait dies before appointing a successor as has been stipulated in the deed. In such cases the right to appoint the Shebait, or the office of Shebait reverts back to the profounder of the Matha or his heirs whether he may be a male or female. If she is a female, shall get the religious acts be performed through male coparceners.