The plaintiff, who passed away during the appeal process, sought a declaration asserting his entitlement to a right of worship by turn (known as Osra) for 10 days in a circuit of 18 months in the Kalyanji Maharaj Temple at Village Diggi, Distt. Tonk, Rajasthan.
This entitlement was claimed under a document referred to as Ext. I, dated September 22, 1961, executed by the deceased Mst. Acharaj, wife of Onkar.
The suit faced resistance from four out of five defendants, with the fifth defendant not appearing.
The primary contention revolved around whether Ext. I, purportedly a will of Mst. Acharaj, was actually a gift, and if so, whether it was admissible in evidence due to alleged lack of proper stamping and registration.
The trial court ruled that Ext. I was not compulsorily registrable as it pertained to the turn of worship, which it considered movable property.
The high court rejected the trial court's reasoning that the subject matter of the suit (the turn of worship) was movable property, emphasizing that the right to worship in a temple could be considered immovable property, reversing the trial court judgment.
The plaintiff's second appeal to the high court was unsuccessful, and the decision to dismiss the suit was upheld.
Hence the present appeal by special leave before SC.
ISSUE
The main issue is whether Ext. I, which is interpreted as a gift of the right of worship, amounts to a transfer of immovable property requiring registration.
RULE
Hindu law recognizes the concept of a hereditary office of Shebait, which involves both the duties of worship and the administration of temple property.
Precedent establishes that hereditary offices like Shebaitship are considered immovable property under Hindu law. Also, The Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act define immovable property broadly to include rights like hereditary allowances.
where an instrument not duly stamped or insufficiently stamped is tendered in evidence, the court has to impound it as obligated by Section 33 and then proceed as required by Section 35, viz., to recover the deficit stamp duty along with penalty.
HELD
Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick (1951 SCR 1125):It established that the office of Shebait, which involves both the duties of worship and the administration of temple property, is considered immovable property under Hindu law.
Krishnabhat bia Hiragange v. Kanabhat bia Mahalbhat (6 Bom HCR 137): The court examined various texts of Hindu law and concluded that while the office of a priest in a temple might not be immovable property in the ordinary sense, Hindu law classifies it as immovable property due to custom and tradition.
Maharana Fattehsangji Jaswantsangji v. Dassi Kallianraiji Hakoomutraiji:The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affirmed the principle established in previous cases that Hindu law treats hereditary offices, including that of Shebait, as immovable property. It emphasized that when considering rights under Hindu law, the term "immovable property" includes whatever Hindu law classifies as such, even if not in the typical legal sense.
The court examines the above case to establish that the hereditary office of Shebait qualifies as immovable property.
Since Ext. I purport to transfer this immovable property but is not registered, it cannot be admitted as evidence.
The court upholds the decision to dismiss the plaintiff's suit, as Ext. I, being an unregistered document purporting to transfer immovable property, is inadmissible as evidence.