JUDGMENT
Coutts, J.
1. This is an appeal against and order of the District Judge of Darbhanga, rejecting an application made by the Collector for the appointment of Mr. Abbott, as guardian, for the management of the debuttar properties of a certain idol on behalf of an infant shebait.
2. The facts are, shortly, that one Ganesh Prasad Narain Sahi in 1914 executed a deed of trust by which he endowed the Thakur with considerable properties and appointed himself a shebait. On his death, if any son were living, the trust deed provided that the son should be the shebait, and there was further provision for the, appointment of any other male descendant: failing male descendants he appointed one of his widows as the shebait. Ganesh Prasad Narain Sahi had three wives, Sheoratan, Saraswati and Parbati. Parbati, in the lifetime of her husband, gave birth to a son named Birendra Kishore Prasad Narain Sahi, who, at the time of the present proceedings, was about two years old. The father died on the nth October 1920 and, as Birendra Kishore would succeed to certain properties of Saraswati Kuar, whose estate was under the management of the Court of Wards, the Court of Wards took over the guardianship of the person of the minor. On the 6th of March 1921 the present application was filed by the Collector before the District Judge under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, that Mr. Abbott might be appointed guardian for the management of the debuttar properties of the idol on behalf of the infant shebait. The application was opposed on the ground that the properties being debuttar properties the minor had no proprietary interest in them and consequently no appointment could be made under the Guardians and. Wards Act. The learned District Judge allowed the objection and disallowed the Collector’s application holding that the petition of the Collector showed that the properties were debuttar properties, that the minor had no interest except that he was the shebait and, further, he found that in the trust deed no proprietary interest had been given to the minor.
3. This appeal has been filed by the Collector and the question is, whether the minor has a proprietary interest in the debuttar properties. In support of the contention that he has such an interest, the decisions in Raghoo Pandey v. Kassy Parey 10 C. 75 : 13 C.L.R. 263 : 8 Ind. Jur. 197 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 51 and Sukh Lal v. Bishambhar 37 Ind. Cas. 661 : 39 A. 196 : 15 A.L.J. 41 are chiefly relied on. The case of Raghoo Pandey v. Kassey Party 10 C. 75 : 13 C.L.R. 263 : 8 Ind. Jur. 197 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 51 however, referred to a right to officiate as a priest at funeral ceremonies. It was held that this right was in the nature of immoveable property. In. Sukh Lal v. Bishambhar 37 Ind. Cas. 661 : 39 A. 196 : 15 A.L.J. 41 it was held that “there is nothing in law to prevent a Maha Brahmin mortgaging his right to offerings receivable by him in his professional capacity.” These two cases are clearly distinguishable from the present case, because in each of them the priest had a beneficial interest. The present case, however, is entirely different; the minor is merely a trustee and whatever right he has is not a personal right but a right derived through the Thakur. On the other hand, the view which has been taken by the learned District Judge is supported by the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Obla Venkatachalapathi Aiyar v. Thirugnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi 42 Ind. Cas. 273 : 33 M.L.J. 297 : 6 L.W. 637. In that case the Court, purporting to act under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, appointed a guardian of the person and property of the plaintiff who was a Mathadhipatti. The guardian sold some of the properties of the mutt with the sanction of the Court. It was held, however, that the properties having been given to the head of the mutt as trustee were trust properties and, therefore, no guardian in respect thereof could be appointed under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. This, case is on all fours with the present case; and, in my opinion, expresses the correct view of the law. In ray opinion the decision of the learned District Judge is correct and I would dismiss this appeal with costs.
Dass, J.
4. I agree.