Case: Angurbala Mullick Vs. Debabrata Mullick

document. It is to be noted that Mrityunjoy was the owner of the dedicated properties and the real founder of the endowment. The mother was associated with him in the act of dedication because it was she who consecrated and established the deity and was looking after its worship and service since it was installed. It was in the fitness of things therefore that Mrityunjoy should request his mother to become the first shebait and this is exactly what is recited in the indenture. After the death of Nitto Sundari, Mrityunjoy, the founder, himself, was to be the shebait and save and except the provision made in favour of Kiranbala, his existing wife, the devolution of shebaitship has been directed to be in the line of heirs of the founder. There is no indication of any intention to treat the heirs as the objects of an independent gift. It may be noted that this identical point was raised before the Federal Court in Umayal Achi v. Lakshmi Achi [[1945] F.C.R. 1] with regard to the devolution of trust estates. The direction in the will in that case was that they should go to the heirs. It was held by Varadachariar J. that it was not reasonable to construe such words as words of gift and not of devolution.26. On the question of construction Mr. Banerjees main argument is that if the relevant provisions of the indenture dealing with devolution of shebaitship are read as a whole, it will be manifest that the executants of the deed intended that the issue of Mrityunjoy were to have preference over other heirs in the matter of succession to shebaitship; and that an heir who is not an issue could not come in so long as an issue remained alive. The relevant portion of the document has been set out already and it provides in the first place that after the death of Nitto Sundari, her son, the said Mrityunjoy Mullick, shall become the shebait, after him his wife Smt. Kiranbala Dassi, and after her death, the heirs of the said Mrityunjoy Mullick shall be and act as shebaits. Then there is a proviso to the effect that if the said Mrityunjoy shall happen to die without any issue or without giving any authority to his wife, him surviving, to adopt, then in such case it shall be competent for Mrityunjoy to appoint by will or otherwise a shebait who would act as such after the death of the said wife; but in case the said Mrityunjoy Mullick shall happen to die without any issue, the shebaitship of the said Thakur after the death of his wife shall devolve upon his heirs under Hindu Law. Mr. Banerjee lays stress upon the proviso, particularly the last portion of it and it contains, according to him, a clear direction that it is only on the failure of issue that the heirs of Mrityunjoy can come in as shebaits. In order that the proviso may be reconciled with the clause that precedes it, Mr. Banerjee invites us to hold that the word "heirs" in the previous clause should be taken to mean only the issue of Mrityunjoy.27. We do not think that the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel is the proper one. A proviso is normally an excepting or a qualifying clause and the effect of it is to except out of the preceding clause upon which it is engrafted something which but for the proviso would be within it. The word "heirs" cannot normally be limited to issue only. It must mean all persons who are entitled to the property of another under the law of inheritance. So far as the main provision is concerned there is nothing in the language or in the context to suggest that the word "heirs" has not been used in its ordinary or natural sense. Mr. Banerjee argues that the proviso in that case would be wholly inexplicable whereas it is a sound canon of construction that all the parts of a document should be read together and no portion is to be omitted. In our opinion, the clause that precedes the proviso lays down the general rule relating to devolution of shebaitship. The expression "heirs" has not been used in any restricted or limited sense and extends to all persons who are entitled to succeed under the law. The proviso engrafts an exception upon the general rule. What it does is to give a power to Mrityunjoy to appoint a shebait, who would come as such after his death in the contingency of his dying without any issue and without giving any authority to his wife to adopt a son. It may be noted that the word "issue" includes both son and daughter and the power of appointment cannot be exercised by Mrityunjoy even if he has a daughter living. The proviso thus qualifies the main provision to this extent that if the particular contingency that is mentioned here is fulfilled, Mrityunjoy would be entitled to appoint a shebait, although no such power can be deduced from the general clause. In case the contingency does happen but the wife is not given any power of adoption and no appointment is also made by Mrityunjoy, the consequence would certainly be that the other heirs of Mrityunjoy would succeed as shebaits and this is what is laid down in the concluding portion of the proviso. The expression "his heirs" at the end of the proviso would certainly mean heirs other than the son and daughter of Mrityunjoy. As Mrityunjoy actually left a son, the contingency contemplated by the proviso did not arise at all and in these circumstances the proviso is to be ignored altogether for purposes of construction and it is not proper to attempt to spell, out of it, by implication, something which is not only not in the main provisions but is contradictory to it. We think, therefore, that this contention of Mr. Banerjee also must fail.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. The exact legal position of a shebait may not be capable of precise definition but its implications are fairly well established. It is settled by the pronouncement of the Judicial Committee in Vidya Varuti v. Balusami [48 I.A. 302] that the relation of a shebait in regard to debutter property is not that of a trustee to trust property under the English law. In English law the legal estate in the trust property vests in the trustee who holds it for the benefit of cestui que trust. In a Hindu religious endowment on the other hand the entire ownership of the dedicated property is transferred to the deity or the institution itself as a juristic person and the shebait or mahant is a mere manager. But though a shebait is a manager and not a trustee in the technical sense, it would not he correct to describe the shebaitship as a mere office. The shebait has not only duties to discharge in connection with the endowment, but he has a beneficial interest in the debutter property. As the Judicial Committee observed in the above case, in almost all such endowments the shebait has a share in the usufruct of the 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 of office and property, of duties and personal interest, are mixed up and blended together; and one of the elements cannot be detached from the other. It is the presence of this personal or beneficial interest in the endowed property which invests shebaitship with the character of proprietary rights and attaches to it the legal incidents of property. This was elaborately discussed by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Manohar Mukherji v. Bhupendra Nath Mukherji [I.L.R. 60 Cal. 452]   and this decision of the Full Bench was approved of by the Judicial Committee in Ganesh Chunder Dhur v. Lal Behary [63 I.A. 448] and again in Bhabatarini v. Ashalata [70 I.A. 57]. The effect of the first two decisions, as the Privy Council pointed out in the last case, was to emphasize the proprietary element in the shebaiti right, and to show that though in some respects anomalous, it was an anomaly to be accepted as having been admitted into Hindu law from an early date. "According to Hindu law," observed Lord Hobhouse in Gossamee Sree Greedharreejee v. Rumanlolljee Gossamee [16 I.A. 137], when the worship of a Thakoor has been founded, the shebaitship is held to be vested in the heirs of the founder, in default of evidence that he has disposed of it otherwise, or there has been some usage, course of dealing, or some circumstances to show a different mode of devolution." Unless, therefore, the founder has disposed of the shebaitship in any particular mannerand this right of disposition is inherent in the founderor except when usage or custom of a different nature is proved to exist, shebaitship like any other species of heritable property follows the line of inheritance from the founder.14. Turning now to the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, it will be seen that the object of the Act, as set out in the preamble, is to give better rights to women in respect of property.It will be seen that section 3(1) abrogates the general rule of Hindu law according to which a widow succeeds to her deceased husbands property only in default of male issue and she is now entitled to the same share as a son along with or in default of male issue. Similar rights have been given by the two provisos attached to section 3(1) to the widow of a predeceased son and also to the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son. Section 3(1) speaks of "any property". The expression prima facie includes, unless something to the contrary can be spelt out from the other provisions of the Act, all forms or types of interest answering to the description of "property" in law. Of course, the property must be heritable property in respect to which alone the question of succession may legitimatelyargument does not appear to us to be at all convincing. Precisely the same thing happens when the shebaiti right devolves upon a female heir under the ordinary law of inheritance. If a shebait dies leaving behind him a widow and no male issue, the widow would succeed to shebaitship under ordinary law but her rights in respect of the shebaiti would be restricted in the same manner as they would have been if the successor was the son. This is because there are certain limitations and restrictions attached to and inherent in the shebaiti right itself and they exist irrespective of the fact as to whether the shebaitship devolves upon a male or a female heir. But although as regards powers of alienation the disability of the male and the female shebaits may be identical, there is yet a distinction between them as regards the other limitation or characteristic of a Hindu womans estate. When Hindu female heir succeeds to the property of a male propositus, she cannot transmit the interest which she inherits, to her own heirs upon her death. The property goes after her death not to her heirs but to the heirs of the last male owner. This rule applies even when the right which devolves upon a widow is the right of a shebait. After her death the shebaiti right would not pass to her stridhana heirs but would go to heirs of the last shebait [Anuragi Kuer v. Paramanand, A.I.R. 1939 Pat. 1]  .(3) of section 3, therefore, is of no assistance to Mr. Banerjeesargument, in our opinion, cannot be accepted as sound. Section 2 of the Act which has been referred to above makes the provisions of section 3 applicable only when a Hindu dies intestate. A person is ordinarily regarded as dying intestate when he has left no will disposing of his properties. A doubt might arise as to whether this Act would apply when a will was actually executed by a deceased, but for some reason or other it was incapable of taking effect and it was for the purpose of removing such doubt that this section was added by the amending Act of 1938. The language of section 5 of the Act is exactly the same as that of section 30 of the Indian Succession Act and the object underlying both these provisions appears to be identical. Mere execution of a will is not enough to exclude the operation of the Act. The will must be an operative will and if the will is void or incapable of taking effect, it would be deemed that the testator has died intestate. If the property isas Mr. Banerjee puts it, no testamentary disposition of such property is possible or could take effect in law and the testator must in such circumstances be deemed to have died intestate in respect of such property. Thus, there is nothing in any of the provisions of the Act from which an inference could be drawn that the expression "property" as used in section 3(1) has a limited or restricted interpretation and is not applicable to shebaitship, which is recognized as property in Hinduobservation that Hindu law regards trusteeship as property for certain purposes is of a most general character and it has to be noted that not only the word "shebaitship" has not been used by the learned Judge but he does not even confine his remarks even to religious trusts. Moreover, trusteeship is not certainly equivalent to shebaitship. On the other hand, the reference made by the learned Judge to the limited objective of the Act affords an indication that he had in mind a trust of such a character where the trustee had no personal interest in the trust property. The object of the Act, as stated above, is to give better rights to women in respect of property. If a trusteeship, even if it is regarded as property, carries with it no emoluments or any beneficial interest for the trustee and consists of nothing else But a bundle of obligations and duties, it might possibly be said that the giving of share in such rights to a Hindu widow would not in any wan improve her position. But the position would be obviously different if there is a beneficial interest of a substantial kind inseparably connected with the duties of a particular office. They again, the learned Judge possibly used the expression "private property" in a somewhat loose sense as meaning personal property in respect to which the proprietor has a beneficial interest of his own. The reference to section 3(3) of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act is, as we have indicated already, not much helpful for the purpose of construing the Act. After all, we must take the decision as it stands and it is not right to call into aid a particular reason assigned by the learned Judge, for the purpose of carrying the decision beyond what it actually purports to lay down. We think that a very proper view of the effect of this decision of the Federal Court has been taken by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in P. Suryanarayanacharyulu v. P. Seshamma . There the question arose in connection with the rights associated with the office of archakatvam, which is a hereditary religious office and the holder or holders of it for the time being are beneficially entitled to enjoy the income of the endowed property. It was held that the principle laid down by the Federal Court in Umayal Achi v. Lakshmi Achi [[1945] F.C.R. 1] has no application to a case relating to the office of archakatvan. It is pointed out by the Madras High Court that though the observations of the learned Judge in the Federal Court are wide, the decision proceeded only on the main ground that the Act governs succession to property beneficially owned by the propositus. In our opinion, the same reasons apply to the case of the hereditary shebait of a private debutter, particularly where, as in the present case, 25 per cent. of the net income of the endowed properties has been given to the shebait of shebaits for the time being as their remuneration. Our conclusion, therefore, is that there is nothing in any of the provisions of the Hindu Womens Rights Property Act which excludes from the scope of operation of the Act succession to shebaitship is a recognized form of property in Hindu Law.23. Assuming that the word "property" in Act XXIII of 1937 is to be interpreted to mean property in 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 of shebaitship, even though there is an ingredient of in it, follows succession to ordinary or secular property. It is the general law of succession that governs succession to shebaitship as well. While the general law now been changed by reason of Act XVIII 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 devolution of shebaitship.24.The last contention of Mr. Tek Chand that under the indenture itself the wife of Mrityunjoy and Kiranbala particularly has been given rights of succession to shebaitship prior to any issue of Mrityunjoy manifestly untenable and as the learned counsel was not at all serious in pressing this point, we consider unnecessary to discuss it anymay be stated at the outset that we are not at all impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that the words "heirs of the said Mrityunjoy" occurring in the document are to be construed as words not of inheritance but of grant.Such construction would be against the language and the whole tenor of the document. It is to be noted that Mrityunjoy was the owner of the dedicated properties and the real founder of the endowment. The mother was associated with him in the act of dedication because it was she who consecrated and established the deity and was looking after its worship and service since it was installed. It was in the fitness of things therefore that Mrityunjoy should request his mother to become the first shebait and this is exactly what is recited in the indenture. After the death of Nitto Sundari, Mrityunjoy, the founder, himself, was to be the shebait and save and except the provision made in favour of Kiranbala, his existing wife, the devolution of shebaitship has been directed to be in the line of heirs of the founder. There is no indication of any intention to treat the heirs as the objects of an independent gift. It may be noted that this identical point was raised before the Federal Court in Umayal Achi v. Lakshmi Achi [[1945] F.C.R. 1] with regard to the devolution of trust estates. The direction in the will in that case was that they should go to the heirs. It was held by Varadachariar J. that it was not reasonable to construe such words as words of gift and not of devolution.We do not think that the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel is the proper one. A proviso is normally an excepting or a qualifying clause and the effect of it is to except out of the preceding clause upon which it is engrafted something which but for the proviso would be within it. The word "heirs" cannot normally be limited to issue only. It must mean all persons who are entitled to the property of another under the law of inheritance. So far as the main provision is concerned there is nothing in the language or in the context to suggest that the word "heirs" has not been used in its ordinary or naturalour opinion, the clause that precedes the proviso lays down the general rule relating to devolution of shebaitship. The expression "heirs" has not been used in any restricted or limited sense and extends to all persons who are entitled to succeed under the law. The proviso engrafts an exception upon the general rule. What it does is to give a power to Mrityunjoy to appoint a shebait, who would come as such after his death in the contingency of his dying without any issue and without giving any authority to his wife to adopt a son. It may be noted that the word "issue" includes both son and daughter and the power of appointment cannot be exercised by Mrityunjoy even if he has a daughter living. The proviso thus qualifies the main provision to this extent that if the particular contingency that is mentioned here is fulfilled, Mrityunjoy would be entitled to appoint a shebait, although no such power can be deduced from the general clause. In case the contingency does happen but the wife is not given any power of adoption and no appointment is also made by Mrityunjoy, the consequence would certainly be that the other heirs of Mrityunjoy would succeed as shebaits and this is what is laid down in the concluding portion of the proviso. The expression "his heirs" at the end of the proviso would certainly mean heirs other than the son and daughter of Mrityunjoy. As Mrityunjoy actually left a son, the contingency contemplated by the proviso did not arise at all and in these circumstances the proviso is to be ignored altogether for purposes of construction and it is not proper to attempt to spell, out of it, by implication, something which is not only not in the main provisions but is contradictory to it. We think, therefore, that this contention of Mr. Banerjee also must fail.