A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This landmark case, Sree Sree Ishwar Sridhar Jew v. Sushila Bala Dasi & Ors. ([1954] SCR 407), encapsulates core principles of Hindu religious endowments under Hindu law, specifically concerning absolute dedication of properties to deities, rights and duties of shebaits, and the legal bar on adverse possession by shebaits against the idol. The Supreme Court meticulously examined the nature of the dedication made by Dwarka Nath Ghose through his will in favour of the family deity and adjudicated on the true beneficiary status of the idol vis-à-vis heirs of the dedicator. It established critical jurisprudence on the inviolability of debutter property, ruling that no shebait can assert hostile possession against the idol. The judgment enunciated key interpretive tools for reading dedications in wills and decisively held that mere right of residence for shebaits does not dilute an otherwise absolute endowment. The Court’s ruling affirms the sanctity of religious trusts and delivers vital precedent on the doctrine of shebaitship, fiduciary duty, and the inapplicability of limitation through adverse possession in religious trust contexts.

Keywords: Hindu Law, Debutter Property, Idol as Juristic Person, Shebait Rights, Adverse Possession, Religious Endowment, Will Construction, Supreme Court 1954, Dedication to Deity

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Sree Sree Ishwar Sridhar Jew v. Sushila Bala Dasi and Others

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 201 of 1952

iii) Judgement Date:
16th November 1953

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice B.K. Mukherjea, Justice Vivian Bose, and Justice N.H. Bhagwati

vi) Author:
Justice N.H. Bhagwati

vii) Citation:
AIR 1954 SC 408; [1954] SCR 407

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Article 133(1) of the Constitution of India, Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Hindu Law of Endowments and Shebaitship, Transfer of Property Act, 1882

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None directly overruled, but Surendrakrishna Ray v. Shree Shree Ishwar Bhubaneshwari Thakurani, I.L.R. 60 Cal. 54 was expressly approved.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Hindu Law, Property Law, Trusts and Endowments, Constitutional Law (Appeals)

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arose from a complex legal dispute surrounding the ownership and dedication of properties by Dwarka Nath Ghose, who had executed a will in 1891 dedicating two immovable properties to the family idol Sree Sree Ishwar Sridhar Jew. The case required a determination on whether the dedication was absolute or partial, and whether the shebaits—appointed to manage the religious duties—could claim adverse possession. Over time, family arrangements, partition suits, and third-party transactions clouded the title to the dedicated property, prompting the idol—represented by a next friend—to initiate recovery proceedings. The lower courts rendered split decisions on different parcels of property, leading to this Supreme Court appeal. The judgment offered a detailed analysis on the status of property dedicated to idols, scope of shebaitship, and invalidity of adverse possession against deities under Hindu law.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Dwarka Nath Ghose executed a will on 10th June 1891, dedicating properties at 40/1 and 41 Grey Street, Calcutta to the family deity Sree Sree Ishwar Sridhar Jew. He appointed his two sons, Rajendra and Jogendra, and his wife, Golap Sundari, as shebaits. After his death in 1892, the dedication was confirmed by his son Rajendra in his own will of 1899. Following Rajendra’s death in 1900 and Jogendra’s subsequent probate of both wills, a suit (Suit No. 969 of 1909) was filed in Calcutta High Court by Rajendra’s heirs for construction of the will, but notably, the idol was not made a party. This resulted in a compromise decree in 1910, dividing the properties amongst family members. Over time, one son Nagendra, after securing his share, mortgaged and settled parts of the property, leading to a sale in 1936. The purchasers were the appellants in this case. The idol filed a suit in 1948 seeking possession and declaration of its ownership over both properties, asserting that all dealings post-1910 were void ab initio. The High Court granted partial relief, which both sides challenged, leading to this final appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the dedication of properties by Dwarka Nath Ghose to the idol was absolute or partial.
ii. Whether shebaits or their heirs could validly alienate debutter property or claim adverse possession.
iii. Whether the 1910 compromise decree and subsequent transactions were binding on the idol.
iv. Whether the right of residence to sevayats could dilute the character of dedication.
v. Whether the idol’s suit was barred by limitation due to alleged adverse possession.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the dedication in the will was partial. They asserted that the right of residence given to the sevayats undermined the exclusivity of the dedication. They argued that Nagendra’s possession of the property post-1920 award was open, exclusive, and hostile, amounting to adverse possession, thus extinguishing the idol’s rights under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. They also claimed that the 1910 compromise decree vested absolute title in human beneficiaries, and the idol, being no party to the suit, cannot now invalidate transactions ratified over three decades ago. Further, they argued that as the idol did not assert any title for over 30 years, the property should be presumed to have reverted to private ownership, thereby invoking the doctrine of laches and waiver.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that the dedication was absolute and unambiguous. They relied on the express language in the will, which mandated that the properties were exclusively for the deity and forbade any alienation. They argued that mere residence rights of sevayats did not compromise the nature of the dedication, citing Gnanendra Nath Das v. Surendra Nath Das (24 C.W.N. 1026). They emphasized that Nagendra was acting as a shebait, and a shebait’s possession is in legal theory the possession of the idol itself. They invoked Surendrakrishna Ray v. Shree Shree Ishwar Bhubaneshwari Thakurani, I.L.R. 60 Cal. 54, which held that shebaits cannot claim adverse possession. They also contended that the compromise decree of 1910 was void against the idol as it was not a party to the suit, thus violating the doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Article 133(1), Constitution of India – Appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
ii. Hindu Law on Religious Endowments – Governs dedication of property to idols
iii. Indian Limitation Act, 1908 – Bar on adverse possession against juristic persons like deities
iv. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Applicability in alienation of trust properties
v. Indian Trusts Act, 1882 – Fiduciary obligations and duties of shebaits as trustees

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court held that the will clearly made an absolute dedication of the two properties to the idol. There was no ambiguity in the testamentary language that prohibited alienation and expressly vested the deity with exclusive ownership. The Court ruled that the right of residence for shebaits did not reduce the dedication to a partial one. Further, it held that no shebait can, during his tenure, assert a hostile title against the idol. The possession of Nagendra and his descendants was deemed representative of the idol’s own possession. Consequently, all acts of alienation were void and incapable of divesting the idol’s title.

b. OBITER DICTA

i. The Court observed that even if the family arrangement or compromise decree appears valid on the surface, it cannot bind the idol unless it was represented independently in the proceedings. Further, it stressed that dedicated property retains its character until lawfully divested, which cannot happen through mere family settlements or silence of shebaits.

c. GUIDELINES 

• A valid dedication must be construed holistically through the language of the will or deed.

• Right to reside by shebaits does not nullify absolute dedication.

• Idol’s right to property is inalienable except in case of legal necessity.

• Shebaits hold property in trust and cannot claim hostile possession.

• Legal proceedings affecting idols must implead them as parties through proper representation.

• Longstanding unauthorized possession by shebaits or heirs does not mature into ownership.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the sanctity and inalienability of debutter property under Hindu law. The judgment drew a firm line between beneficial interest of human heirs and ownership rights of deities. It prevented misuse of religious office for personal gains and clarified that deities, being juridical persons, enjoy strong property rights, immune from adverse claims by their own trustees. This ruling is a cornerstone in preserving religious endowments from encroachment and remains a vital precedent in property law, endowment law, and fiduciary jurisprudence in India.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Pande Har Narayan v. Surja Kunwari, (1920) L.R. 48 I.A. 143 [1]

2. Gnanendra Nath Das v. Surendra Nath Das, 24 C.W.N. 1026 [2]

3. Surendrakrishna Ray v. Shree Shree Ishwar Bhubaneshwari Thakurani, I.L.R. 60 Cal. 54 [3]

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Article 133(1), Constitution of India

2. Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Section 27

3. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 6

4. Indian Trusts Act, 1882, Sections 88–94