Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick

Facts

• A family dispute arose over the management and property of a Hindu idol (deity) installed in a family temple
• Pramatha Nath Mullick claimed rights over the idol's property as shebait (manager/custodian)
• The question was whether property belonged to the shebait personally or to the idol as an independent entity
• The idol had been consecrated and endowed with property by ancestors of both parties

Issues

1. Whether a Hindu idol is a juristic person capable of holding property in its own right?
2. What is the legal position of the shebait in relation to the idol's property?

Held

• The Privy Council held that a Hindu idol is a juristic person in the eyes of law. Property dedicated to the idol vests in the deity itself and not in any human being. The shebait is merely a manager or custodian who administers the property for the benefit of the idol and its worship. The idol's estate is analogous to that of a minor: it cannot act on its own but requires a human agent to manage its affairs. The shebait occupies a position of trust and cannot deal with the property as his own.

Ratio Decidendi

A Hindu idol, once duly consecrated and established, is recognised as a juristic person capable of holding and owning property independently of any natural person; the shebait is not the owner but a manager analogous to a guardian of a minor, and all property dedicated to the idol vests in the deity as a legal entity in its own right.