{"id":197627,"date":"1997-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997"},"modified":"2015-05-27T19:04:34","modified_gmt":"2015-05-27T13:34:34","slug":"kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997","title":{"rendered":"Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997<\/div>\n
Bench: K. R Amaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKALYAN DAS ANR.\t RAMBIR DAS & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMBIR DAS & ANR.  KALYAN DAS ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t19\/02\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nK. R AMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\n\t       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4173 OF 1983
\n\t\t\t O R D E R
\nC.A. NO. 947 OF 1980
\n     This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment
\ndated 19th   March,  1980 passed by the learned Single Judge
\nof the High Court of Allahabad in SA No. 1940 of 1977.\n<\/p>\n
     The admitted  position  is\t that  one  Hari  Das  owned
\nconsiderable  properties  situated  in\tthe  town  Khair  of
\nAligarh District  which is  part of Schedule ‘B’ attached to
\nthe Plaint.  He constructed  a temple,\tby name\t Shri  Jugal
\nKishoreji Maharaj  Mandir. Therein,  the principal  deity is
\nLord Krishna  & Radha.\the endowed all his properties to the
\nMandir. During his life time, he was in-charge of the temple
\nas de  facto trustee  and he did seva (service) and pooja to
\nthe deity.  After the abolition of the estate under the U.P.
\nZamindari Abolition  & Land  Reforms  Act,  1950,  bhumidari
\nright in  the properties  were conferred  on the  deity Lord
\nKrishna and  Radha. Hari Dass left behind him four chelas by
\nname, Narain  Dass, Bansi  Dass, Monhar Dass and his brother
\nHar Govind  Das are  sons of  Ram DAss. Bansi Dass, the last
\nserving chela,\thad executed  a will,  Ex. B-19\t on 9.2.1955
\nwhereunder he  nominated the  plaintiff and  his brother  as
\nShebaits of  the Mandir.  During his  life time\t by Deed  of
\nAdoption dated\tJanuary 6, 1966, Ex. A-45 cancelled the Will
\nand adopted defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as his chelas, Bansi Dass
\ndied on\t February 3,  1969. Thereafter,\t the disputes  arose
\nbetween the  appellants and  the respondents as to who would
\nbe entitled  to succeed to the Shebaitship of the Mandir. It
\nis not necessary to dilate upon the proceedings that went on
\nin the\tCriminal Court\tand in the suit. Suffice it to state
\nthat the  appellant had\t sought a  relief of  declaration of
\nsuccession as  a Shebait  to the  mandir, possession thereof
\nand   consequential   perpetual\t  injunction   against\t the
\nrespondents  from   interfering\t with  his  Shebaitship\t and
\npossession and enjoyment of the property as a Shebait of the
\ntemple. The  trial Court  granted the  decree. On appeal, it
\nwas confirmed.\tIn the\tsecond appeal,\tthe  learned  single
\njudge held that the cancellation of the Will in the Adoption
\nDeed is\t valid for  the reason\tthat Rambir Dass had married
\nand thereby  he ceased\tto be  a bairagi.  His\tbrother\t Har
\nGovind Dass   having become insane, was disqualified to be a
\nShebait. The defendants-respondents being minors, nomination
\nin that\t behalf is  invalid in\tlaw. As\t a consequence,\t the
\nproperty became escheat; he directed the Advocate-General to
\ntake action  for possession  of the  properties. Thus,\tthis
\nappeal by special leave and cross appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     The primary  question for consideration is; whether the
\nappellant’s claim to be a Shebait of the Mandir is valid and
\nsustainable in\tlaw? In Tagore Law Lectures – 1936 published
\nin “Hindu  Law\t of Religious and Charitable Trust”, Justice
\nB.K. Mukherjee,\t the former  Chief  justice  of\t this  court
\nstated at page 216 as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “As  shebaitship  is  property,  it
\n     devolves like  any\t other\tproperty
\n     according to the ordinary Hindu law
\n     of inheritance.  If it  remains  in
\n     the founder, it follows the line of
\n     founder’s heirs;  if it is disposed
\n     of\t absolutely   in  favour   of  a
\n     grantees,\tit   devolves  upon  the
\n     heirs of the latter in the ordinary
\n     way and  if for any reason the line
\n     appointed\t  by\t donor\t   fails
\n     altogether, shetaiship  (g). In the
\n     matter of appointment of a shebait,
\n     the discretion  of the  founder  is
\n     unfettered. No  Hindu would  indeed
\n     think of  appointing  a  person  as
\n     manager  of  a  temple,  who  is  a
\n     follower of a in law which prevents
\n     hi from  appointing as  shebait,  a
\n     person  of\t different  or\tinferior
\n     caste.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  further stated  at page  217
\n     thus:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     As succession  to shebaitship    is
\n     governed by  the  ordinary\t law  of
\n     inheritance, it  scarcely admits of
\n     any doubt\tthat a woman can succeed
\n     to shebaitship,   the Supreme Court
\n     of India  has  held  very\trecently
\n     that  shebaitship\t is   ‘property’
\n     within the\t meaning  of  the  Hindu
\n     Women’s  Right   to  Property  Act;
\n     consequently in a case to which the
\n     Act applies  the widow  and son  of
\n     the last shebait rights held by the
\n     latter. It\t has been  held\t further
\n     that   even   if\tthe   expression
\n     ‘property’\t in  the  Hindu\t Women’s
\n     right to  Property in its common or
\n     accepted sense  and is  not  to  be
\n     extended to  any  special\ttype  of
\n     property\t which\t   ‘Shebaitship’
\n     admittedly\t is,  as  succession  to
\n     shebaitship follows  succession  to
\n     ordinary\tsecular\t  property   the
\n     general  law  of  succession  under
\n     Hindu Law\tto the\textent, that  it
\n     has  been\tmodified  by  the  Hindu
\n     Women’s Right to Property Act would
\n     also be  attracted to devolution of
\n     Shebait rights”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     At page 227, it is stated thus:
\n     As\t there\tis  always  an\tultimate
\n     reversion to  the\tfounder\t or  his
\n     heirs, in case the line of shebaits
\n     is extinct,  strictly  speaking  no
\n     question of  escheat arises  so far
\n     as the devolution of shebaitship is
\n     concerned.\t  But\tcases\tmay   be
\n     imagined where the founder also has
\n     left no  heirs, and  in such  cases
\n     the   founder’s\tproperties   may
\n     escheat to\t the State together with
\n     the    endowed\tproperty.     In
\n     circumstances   like   these,   the
\n     rights of\tthe State would possibly
\n     be the same as those of the founder
\n     himself, and  it would be for it to
\n     himself, and  it would be for it to
\n     appoint a\tshebait for the Debutter
\n     property. It  cannot be  said  that
\n     the  State\t receiving  a  dedicated
\n     property but escheat can put an end
\n     to\t the   trust  and  treat  it  as
\n     secular property”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Mayne’s\t Hindu Law  & Usage [14th Edn.] at page 965,
\npara 639 on “Entrance into religious order”, it is stated as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
     “One who  enters into  a  religious
\n     order severs  his\tconnection  with
\n     the members  of his natural family.
\n     he\t is  accordingly  excluded  from
\n     inheritance.  Neither  he\tnor  his
\n     natural relatives\tcan  succeed  to
\n     each other’s properties. The person
\n     who are excluded on his ground come
\n     under  three   heads,   viz.,   the
\n     Vanaprastha, or hermit; the Sanyasi
\n     or\t Yati,\t or  ascetic;\tand  the
\n     Brahamchri, or  perpetual religious
\n     student. In order to bring a person
\n     under these  heads, it is necessary
\n     to show  an absolute abandonment by
\n     him of  all secular  abandonment by
\n     him of  all secular property, and a
\n     complete and  final withdrawal from
\n     earthly  affairs..\t The  mere  fact
\n     that  a   person  calls  himself  a
\n     Hyragi, or\t religious mendicant, or
\n     indeed that  he is such does not of
\n     itself disentitle\thim to\t succeed
\n     to property.  Nor does  any  Sunder
\n     come under\t this  disqualification,
\n     unless by\tusage. This  civil death
\n     does not  prevent\tthe  person  who
\n     enters into an order from acquiring
\n     and holding  private property which
\n     will devolve,  not of  course  upon
\n     his    natural    relations,    but
\n     according\tto   special  rules   of
\n     inheritance.  But\t it   would   be
\n     otherwise\tif  there  is  no  civil
\n     death in  the eye\tof the\tlaw, but
\n     only  the\t holding  by  a\t man  of
\n     certain   religious   opinions   or
\n     professions.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Baba  Kartar Singh  Bedi V\/s.  Dayal Das  & Ors.[AIR
\n1939 PC 201 AT 207] this Court had held thus:\n<\/p>\n
     “It  was\talso   argued\tby   the
\n     respondent’s counsel that the  word
\n     ‘chela’ in\t will meant  an\t adopted
\n     son. This\tcontention too, in their
\n     Lordships’ view, is totally without
\n     foundation.   A chela,  as is  well
\n     knowing India,  means  a  disciple.
\n     His different  from an adopted son,
\n     both  in\tthe   process\tof   his
\n     initiation and  in the  purpose  of
\n     his existence. A chela is generally
\n     nominated\tby   the  ruling  mahant
\n     during his\t lifetime to conduct the
\n     affairs of a religious institution,
\n     or if  he fails to do so, the chela
\n     is\t nominated   by\t his   principal
\n     followers after  his death, who are
\n     connected\twith   the  institution.
\n     There could  be no\t analogy between
\n     him and an adopted son, as known to
\n     Hindu  Law.  In  the  case\t of  the
\n     latter, it is imperative that on of
\n     his genitive parents must give, and
\n     one of  his adoptive  parents  must
\n     receive him  in   adoption. Without
\n     such a  gift and taking no adoption
\n     can  be   valid.  There   are,   in
\n     addition, rituals\tsuch as the are,
\n     in addition,  rituals such\t as  the
\n     sacrificial fire,\tcalled “Homa” to
\n     complete\t   ceremonially\t     the
\n     transaction of  adoption and lastly
\n     if\t may   be  mentioned   that  the
\n     principal function\t of a  that  the
\n     principal function of a adopted son
\n     is\t  to\tperforms    periodically
\n     sharaddas, or  obsequial  rites  to
\n     his  parents   and\t  other\t  souls,
\n     according\tto  salvation  of  their
\n     souls, according  to  salvation  of
\n     their  should  according  to  Hindu
\n     sentiment. None  of these incidents
\n     are to  be found  in the  case of a
\n     chela, whose affiliation, if it may
\n     be so  described, is mainly for the
\n     purpose\tof     continuing    the
\n     traditional   obligation\tof   the
\n     institution   and\t  holding    and
\n     managing its property for\tpurposes
\n     incidental\t  thereto.    His   main
\n     function\tis    not   to\t perform
\n     obsequial rites  for the benefit of
\n     his ancestors, for in most cases, a
\n     sanysasin\tor  a  mahant,\twhen  he
\n     enters   that    order,   abrogates
\n     (householder),\twhose\t  future
\n     felicity in a post mortem existence
\n     is the  object of solicitude on the
\n     part of his male descendants”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Parma  Nand V\/s. Nihal Chand [65 IA 252 at page 257]
\nSir   Shadi Lal speaking on behalf of the Judicial Committee
\nheld thus :\n<\/p>\n
     “In the town of Gujranwala there is
\n     a building\t variously described  as
\n     Baghichi  Thankaran   or\tGurdwara
\n     Baghichi, and  the main issue which
\n     their Lordship have to determine in
\n     this   appeal   is\t  whether   that
\n     buildings, together  with the shops
\n     and other\tproperty attached to it,
\n     is the  subject matter  of a  trust
\n     for   a   public\tpurpose\t  of   a
\n     charitable or religious nature. The
\n     issue was\traised by the defendants
\n     who,    claiming\t to    be    the
\n     representatives of the Hindu public
\n     made an application to the District
\n     Judge under  s.3 of  the Charitable
\n     and  alleging   that  he\tBaghichi
\n     Thakaran was a public endowment for
\n     religious and  charitable\tpurpose,
\n     and called\t upon Mahant  Narain Das
\n     who was  described by  them as  the
\n     trustee  of   the\t endowment,   to
\n     furnish details  of the  nature and
\n     purposes of  the trust,  and of the
\n     value of  the property belonging to
\n     the   trust, and  also to render an
\n     account   of    the   income    and
\n     expenditure of  the trust property.
\n     Their allegation  were contested by
\n     Narain  Das   and\tthe  controversy
\n     between the  parties led  to    the
\n     present action,  brought by  Narain
\n     Das for the purpose of obtaining an
\n     authoritative  pronouncement   upon
\n     the nature\t of the trust and of the
\n     property attached to it”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Krishna\t Singh V\/s. Mathura Ahir & Ors. [AIR 1980 SC
\n707 at\t725] this  Court had pointed out in paras 77 and 89,
\nas regards the rights of a sanyasi, thus:\n<\/p>\n
     The  learned  Civil  Judge\t in  his
\n     judgment  observes:   The\tfact  of
\n     Harsewanand being a sanyasi remains
\n     undoubted’. His finding that he was
\n     not  a   Hindu  sanyasi   law  mere
\n     ‘renunciation’ of\tthe world is not
\n     sufficient. Hence,\t he holds that a
\n     Sudra who\trenounced the  world and
\n     became sanyasi cannot be said to be
\n     a Hindu  Sanyasi, as  according  to
\n     the  Hindu\t Sastras  no  Sudra  can
\n     become a  sanyasi.\t The  underlying
\n     fallacy lies  in his  overs looking
\n     that the  question not according to
\n     the orthodox view, but according to
\n     the  usage\t  or   custom\tof   the
\n     particular sect  or fraternity.  It
\n     is\t needless   to\tstress\t that  a
\n     religious\t    denomination      or
\n     institution     enjoys\tcomplete
\n     autonomy in  the matter  of  laying
\n     down the rites and ceremonies which
\n     are essential.  We must accordingly
\n     hold that\tthe plaintiff  was   the
\n     validly initiated\tchela  of  Swami
\n     Atmavivekanand and\t upon his demise
\n     was duly installed as the mahant of
\n     Garwaghat\tMath  according\t to  the
\n     tenets   of    his\t   ‘Sant    Mat’
\n     Sampradaya.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  instant case, the appellant
\n     himself,\tof    course,\t without
\n     prejudice to his right to challenge
\n     the   right    of\t the\toriginal
\n     plaintiff,\t Harsewanand,  to  bring
\n     the    suit,     substituted    the
\n     respondent No.1  Harshankarnand, as
\n     his  heir and legal representative,
\n     while disputing  his claim\t that he
\n     had been  appointed as  the mahant,
\n     as he  felt that  the appeal  could
\n     not proceed without substitution of
\n     his  name.\t  In  his   reply,   the
\n     respondent\t  No.1\t Harshankaranand
\n     alleges that  after the  demise  of
\n     mahant  Harsewananad  he  was  duly
\n     installed\t as    the   mahant   of
\n     Garwaghat Math  by the  ‘Sant  Mat’
\n     fraternity. He further asserts that
\n     he was  in possession and enjoyment
\n     of the  math  and\tits  properties.
\n     Thus fact\tthat he is in management
\n     and control  of he\t math properties
\n     is not  in dispute. The issue as to
\n     whether he\t was so installed or not
\n     or whether\t he has any right to the
\n     office   of    a\tmahant,\t  cannot
\n     evidently\t be   decided\tin   the
\n     appeal, but  nevertheless, he has a
\n     right to be substituted in place of
\n     the deceased  Mahant Hareswanand as
\n     he is a legal representative within
\n     the meaning  of  S.2  (11),  as  he
\n     indubitably is  intermeddling  with
\n     the estate.  He has  therefore, the
\n     right to  come in and prosecute the
\n     appeal on behalf of the math.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In Sri  Mahilinga Thambiran Swamigal V\/s. His Holisness
\nSri La\tSri Kasivasi  Arulnandi Thambiran Swamigal [(1974) 2
\nSCR 74 at 88-61], this court had held as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “The definition  of “Will”\t in  s.2\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (h) of  the Indian\t Succession Act,
\n     1925 would\t show  that  it\t is  the
\n     legal declaration\tof the intention
\n     of a  testator with  respect to his
\n     property which  he\t desires  to  be
\n     carried  into   effect  after   his
\n     death. By\texercising the\tpower of
\n     nomination, the  head of  a Mutt is
\n     not  disposing   of  any\tproperty
\n     belonging to  him which is to taken
\n     effect  after   his  death.  He  is
\n     simply exercising\ta power to which
\n     he is  entitled to\t under the usage
\n     of the  institution.  A  nomination
\n     makes  the\t  nominee  stand   in  a
\n     p[eculiar\trelationship   with  the
\n     head of  the  Mutt\t and  the  Hindu
\n     community\tand   that  relationship
\n     invests him  with the  capacity  to
\n     succeed  to  the  headship\t of  the
\n     Mutt. A  nomination takes effect in
\n     presenti. It  is the declaration of
\n     the intention  of the  head of  the
\n     Mutt for  the time\t being as to who
\n     his successor  would be;  therefore
\n     although it  is said that the usage
\n     in the  Mutt is  that the\tpower of
\n     nomination is  exercisable by will,
\n     it is really a misnomer, because, a
\n     will in  the genuine  sense of  the
\n     term can be made by deed or word of
\n     mouth.  IN\t  such\t a   case,   the
\n     nomination can  be made  by deed or
\n     word of  mouth. In such a case, the
\n     nomination invests the nominee with
\n     a present status. That status gives
\n     him the  capacity to succeed to the
\n     headship of  the Mutt  on the death
\n     of\t the   incumbent  for  the  time
\n     being. If that is the effect of the
\n     nomination when  made  by\tdeed  or
\n     word of mouth, we find it difficult
\n     to say  that when\ta nomination  is
\n     made by  will,  it\t does  not  take
\n     effect in presenti, and that it can
\n     be cancelled  by executing\t another
\n     will  revoking   the  former  will.
\n     Such, at any rate, does not seem to
\n     be the  concept of\t rate  does  not
\n     seem   to\t be   the   concept   of
\n     nomination in  the law relating  to
\n     Hindu   Religious\t Endowments.   A
\n     nomination need  not partake of the
\n     character of  a will  in the matter
\n     of its revocability, merely because
\n     of power  f nomination is exercised
\n     by a  will.  In  other  words,  the
\n     nature of character of a nomination
\n     does not  depend upon  the type  of
\n     document under  which the\tpower is
\n     exercised.\t If   a\t nomination   is
\n     otherwise\tirrevocable  except  for
\n     good  cause,  it  does  not  become
\n     revocable\twithout\t good  does  not
\n     become   revocable\t  without   good
\n     cause, merely  because the power is
\n     exercised by  a will.  If the power
\n     of nomination  is\texercised  by  a
\n     will,  it\t is  pro-tanto\t a  non-
\n     testamentary instrument. A document
\n     can  be   partly  testamentary  and
\n     partly  non-testamentary.\t In  Ram
\n     Nath vs. Ram Nagina [Air 1962 Patna
\n     481], the\thead of the Mutt for the
\n     time being\t exercised his\tpower of
\n     nomination more  or   less in terms
\n     of Exhibit\t B-1  here,  namely,  by
\n     making   the    nomination\t  of   a
\n     successor and  providing that he of
\n     a successor  and providing that the
\n     will be owner of the properties and
\n     charities of  the Mutt  and also of
\n     the other properties standing n the
\n     name of  the head\tof the Mutt. The
\n     Court  held  that\tso  far\t as  the
\n     nomination and  devolution\t of  the
\n     properties\t  of   the   Mutt   were
\n     concerned, the  will operated  as a
\n     non-testamentary  instrument.   The
\n     Court said that the condition which
\n     must be satisfied before a document
\n     can be  called a will is that there
\n     must   be\t some\tdisposition   of
\n     property and that the document must
\n     contain  a\t  declaration\tof   the
\n     intention of  the testator not with
\n     respect  to   any\tthing  but  with
\n     respect to\t his property. According
\n     to\t the   Court,  if   there  is  a
\n     declaration   of\tintention   with
\n     respect to his successor, it cannot
\n     constitute\t a   will  even\t if  the
\n     document were  to\tstate  that  the
\n     nominee will  become the  owner  of
\n     the properties  of the  Mutt  after
\n     the death\tof the\texecutant of the
\n     will as that is only a statement of
\n     the  legal\t  consequence\tof   the
\n     nomination.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     At page  88, this\tCourt, looking\tfrom another  angle,
\nheld as under :\n<\/p>\n
     “Looking at the matter from another
\n     angle,  we\t  come\t to   the   same
\n     conclusion. We  have  already  said
\n     that the  power of\t nomination must
\n     be exercised  not corruptly  or for
\n     ulterior reason  but bona\tfide and
\n     in the interest of the Mutt and the
\n     Hindu community.  It then stands to
\n     reason  to\t hold  that    power  to
\n     revoke the\t nomination must also be
\n     exercised\tbona  fide  and\t in  the
\n     interest of the institution and the
\n     community.\t In   other  words,  the
\n     power to  revoke can  be  exercised
\n     nor arbitrarily,  but only for good
\n     cause  would   be\tgood   and   the
\n     defendant had  no\tcase  before  us
\n     that he revoked that nomination for
\n     a good cause.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We hold that a nomination when made
\n     can be  cancelled or  revoked  only
\n     for   a\tgood   cause   and,   as
\n     admittedly, there was no good cause
\n     shown in this case for cancellation
\n     of the  nomination by  Exhibit B-9,
\n     the cancellation  was bad\tin  law.
\n     Therefore, it must be held that the
\n     appellant was holding the status of
\n     the  Elavarsu   of\t the  Kasi  Mutt
\n     during  the   life\t time\tof   the
\n     defendant. Normally,  a court  will
\n     declare  only   the  right\t of  the
\n     parties as they existed on the date
\n     o the institution of the suit. But,
\n     in this  case, on\taccount\t of  the
\n     subsequent event, namely, the death
\n     of the  defendant, we have to mould
\n     the  relief  to  suit  the\t altered
\n     circumstance. If  the defendant had
\n     been  alive.  it  would  have  been
\n     sufficient if  we had  declared, as
\n     the learned  single judge has done,
\n     that the appellant was the Elavarsu
\n     of the Kasi Mutt. Now the defendant
\n     is dead, we make a declaration that
\n     the appellant  was holding the that
\n     the  applellant   was  holding  the
\n     position of the Elavarsu during the
\n     lifetime of the defendant, that the
\n     revocation of the nomination of the
\n     appellant\tas   the   Elavarsu   by
\n     Exhibit B-9  was bad,  and that the
\n     appellant was  entitled to\t succeed
\n     to the  headship of the Mutt on the
\n     death of the defendant.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Ms. Rachna\t Gupta, learned\t counsel appearing  for\t the
\nrespondents, relied  on the passage from Tagore Law Lectures\n<\/p>\n
–   1936   delivered by B.K. Mukherjee as published in Hindu
\nLaw of\tReligious & Charitable Trusts at page 205, para 5.6A
\nand 5.6B which read as under :\n<\/p>\n
     5.6A. Shebaitship\tremains\t in  the
\n     founder  and   his\t  heirs\t  unless
\n     disposed  of.    When  a  deity  is
\n     installed, the  shebaitship remains
\n     in\t the   founder\tand  his  heirs.
\n     “According\t to   Hindu  Law”,  thus
\n     observed Lord  Hobhouse in Gossamee
\n     Sree   Greedhareejee    vs.   Ruman
\n     Lalljee [L.R.  16\tI.A.  137]-  and
\n     this    observation     has    been
\n     reiterated i n numerous cases since
\n     then  –  “when  the  worship  of  a
\n     Thakur  has   been\t  founded,   the
\n     shebaitship is  held to be vested i
\n     n\tthe  heirs  of\tthe  founder  in
\n     default of\t evidence that\tthe  has
\n     disposed of  it otherwise, or there
\n     has  been\tsome  usage,  course  of
\n     dealing or\t some  circumstances  to
\n     slow   a\t different    mode    of
\n     devolution.” Unless, therefore, the
\n     founder   has   disposed\tof   the
\n     shebaitship in  any particular  way
\n     and except\t when an usage or custom
\n     of a  different nature is proved to
\n     exist, shebaitship\t like any  other
\n     species   of   heritable\tproperty
\n     follows  the  line\t of  inheritance
\n     from the founder.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     5.6B It  devolves\tlike  any  other
\n     species  of  heritable  property.–
\n     Where the\tfounder of  a temple had
\n     died  without  having  appointed  a
\n     shebait, it was held that his widow
\n     on whom  the right\t to appoint  had
\n     devolved was  entitled to appoint a
\n     shebait for  the temple,  and  such
\n     appointment was  not open to attach
\n     as an alienation of the office of a
\n     trustee.\tAnd    the   rule   that
\n     shebaitship devolves like any other
\n     species  of   property   has   been
\n     applied to the office or Archaka as
\n     well,   where    emoluments    were
\n     attached to it.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     From the  evidence it  is clear that the plaintiffs are
\nentitled to  act as  shebaits of  the temple  because in the
\nendowment deed\tat Ex.2\t late Sri Hari Dass did not lay down
\nthe line of succession to the office of Shebait. Further his
\n4 chelas nominated in this deed did not exercise their power
\nto appoint some shebait and as such it was not open for late
\nBansi Dass  to appoint\t2 chelas belonging to another family
\nof his\town desire.  Since Bansi  Dass\theirs  of  Ram\tDass
\nbecause Ram Dass and Bansi Dass were real brothers.\n<\/p>\n
     The trial\tCourt decreed  the  suit  holding  that\t the
\nplaintiffs are\tshebaits or  sarbarkars to  the\t temple\t Sri
\nThakur Jugal  Kishorji Maharaj\tBirajman Mandir\t (Marhi)  in
\ntown Khair  and its  debutter property\tas shown in schedule
\n‘B’ of\tthe plaint and for possession over the said property
\nand  also   for\t a   permanent\tinjunction  restraining\t the
\ndefendant from interfering in the plaintiffs possession over
\nthe said property. The defendants are given one month’s time
\nto deliver vacant possession of the disputed property to the
\nplaintiffs failing which the plaintiffs would be entitled to
\nget possession through court.\n<\/p>\n
     On appeal,\t the appellate\tCurt recorded  the  findings
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
     “Hari Dass, the original founder of
\n     the trust\thad  not  specified  any
\n     direction\tin   the  waqf\tdeed  of
\n     1.4.20  with   regard   to\t  future
\n     Shebaitship or  Sarbarkarship after
\n     the  death\t  of  the   four  chelas
\n     nominated by  him. The  four chelas
\n     were also\tnot given  any authority
\n     to\t nominate   future  shebaits  or
\n     sarbarkars after their death and as
\n     such that\toffice of Shebaitship of
\n     Sarbakarship   devolved\ton   the
\n     plaintiffs as  sons of Ram Dass and
\n     Bansi Dass\t though they  were  also
\n     the  disciples   of   Bansi   Dass.
\n     Defendant Nos.1  and 2  were minors
\n     and as  such they could neither act
\n     as chelas\tof Bansi  Dass nor could
\n     entitled  themselves   to\tact   as
\n     shebatits or  sarbarkars in  law on
\n     any  account   and\t the  directions
\n     given in  the adoption  deed  dated
\n     6.6.66 were  illegal  and\tvoid  ab
\n     initio Defendants\t4 and  4 had got
\n     fraudulent and  fictitious\t entires
\n     made in  Revenue  papers  in  their
\n     favour in collusion with lekhpal as
\n     sub-tenant over certain area of the
\n     temple  land  though  they\t had  no
\n     interest or  title at  all\t and  as
\n     such Hoti\tLal and Kishore Lal, the
\n     respective fathers and guardians of
\n     the defendants 1 and 2 had no right
\n     to claim  the property  against the
\n     interests of the deity”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It would, thus, be seen that there is no controversy as
\nto whether Rambir Dass became entitled to succeed the temple
\na shebait  as could  be seen from the evidence; in the light
\nof the\tabove\tlegal position,\t Hari Dass had not laid down
\nany line  of succession\t to his\t chelas\t to  administer\t the
\ndebutter estate\t of the\t temple. He  left  behind  him\tfour
\nchelas and  admittedly one  of the  chelas,  Ram  Dass,\t and
\nmarried. The appellant and his brother, are the progenies of
\nRam Dass.  Bansi Dass,\tthe last  chela had  executed a Will
\nunder Which  he nominated  Rambir Dass\tand his\t brother  as
\nShebait. Admittedly,  he did not reserve any right to cancel
\ntheir nomination  in the  Will. He  cancelled the Will while
\nexecuting an  Adoption Deed in favour of the defendants. The
\nquestion is:  whether he  had the  competence to  cancel the
\nWill having  duly nominated the appellant and his brother as
\nSehbaits? Since\t the brother of the appellant became insane,
\nit is not necessary to go into the question whether he would
\nsucceed\t after\t Rambir\t Dass.\t The  Will   in\t the  normal
\nconnotation, takes  effect after the demise of the testator.
\nBut in\tthe case  of nomination of a shebait, the nomination
\ntakes effect  from the\tdate of\t its execution\tthough it is
\nstyled as   will.  Once it takes effect, the nominee becomes
\nentitled to go into the office as a shebait after the demise
\nof the\tlast chela  of Hari Dass. Under these circumstances,
\nthe shebaitship\t being a  property, vests in Rambir Dass and
\nhe could  administer the  property and manage the temple for
\nthe purpose  of spiritual  and other purpose with which Hari
\nDass, the  original founder had endowed the property to Lord
\nKrishna and Radha.\n<\/p>\n
     The Next  question is;  whether Bansi Dass has power to
\nadopt defendants  1 and\t 2 and\tdeprive the appellant of his
\nright of  shebaitship? Having  seen that  Bansi Dass did not
\nreserve any  right to cancel the nomination and that too for
\nvalid reasons,\tthe Will  became operative as soon as it was
\nexecuted. Thereby, he had no more any power to cancel it and
\nthereby the  right of  adoption would  not be approved of by
\nthis Court  as valid in law, as he is a Bairagi and he could
\nnot adopt  anyone except  nominating a chela who follows the
\nprinciples and\tprecepts the  founder  had  laid  for  being
\nobserved.   Unfortunately, there  is no\t plea in this behalf
\nnor is\tany power  in that  behalf. The only ground on which
\nthe cancellation  came to  be made  was that Rambir Dass had
\nmarried and thereby he became disentitled to be a Bairagi to
\nadminister the\tdebutter estate\t as a  shebait. There  is no
\npleading that  the married  bairagi cannot hold the property
\nnor that  he becomes  a shebait\t to administer\tthe debutter
\nestate endowed\tto the\tMandir. It  is to  be seen  that the
\nproperty stands\t vested in the deity, Lord Krishna and Radha
\nand that  anyone who  administers the property, does so as a
\nshebait and administers as  trustee for and on behalf of the
\ndeity. It  is true  that the  High court  has disallowed the
\nWell and held that neither party is entitled to shebaitship,
\nThe view taken by the High Court is   clearly illegal. It is
\nnot the\t case that  the appellant was not nominate under the
\nWill executed  by Bansi\t Dass, in  the\tfirst  instance\t and
\nthereby he was vested with the right to manage, as a Shebait
\nof the\tdebutter estate belonging to the deity, Lord Krishna
\nand Radha.  There is no plea nor proof that a married person
\nis not\tentitled to  be the  shebait. Therefore, the view of
\nthe High Court that the became disentitled on account of the
\nmarriage is  clearly illegal.  A chela\tcannot be adopted be
\nadopted but can be nominated. As a consequence, the adoption
\nof defendants  1 and  2 by  Bansi Dass as chelas is also not
\nlegal for  the reason  that they  were minors as on the date
\nwhen the  claims to  have adopted them elas. Chela nominated
\nmust be\t one who  is independent and capable to renounce the
\nworldly affairs\t or capable  to adopt himself as Bairagi. He
\ncannot adopt  anyone as\t his successor by application of the
\ngeneral principles of law.\n<\/p>\n
Under these  circumstances, though for different reason, the
\nadoption deed  executed by Bansi Dass in clearly illegal. In
\nconsequence, the  estate does  not become  an estate  but it
\ncontinues to  remain vested  in the  deity and\tthe  shebait
\nremains incharge  of management\t of the\t erty.\tThe right of
\nmanagement should go either in the order of succession given
\nby the\toriginal founder  or, in its absence, in the line of
\nintestate succession.  It is  seen that\t Ram Dass one of the
\nchelas was  married and\t he left behind his son Rambir Dass,
\nthe appellant; another chela, Bansi Dass having died without
\nnominating any\tchela, necessarily,  the succession would go
\nto the heirs of one of the chelas. In the absence of line of
\nsuccession indicated by the founder, admittedly, Rambir Dass
\nbecame entitled\t to  succeed  by  inheritance  the  debutter
\nestate as  shebait to  manage the  temple on  behalf of\t the
\ndeity Lord  Krishna and\t Radha and  he\tremains\t to  be\t the
\ntrustee and  is entitled to get possession of the properties
\nand manage  the same  for the  purpose for  which and in the
\nmanner in  which, it  was    Hari  Dass,  If  there  is\t any
\ndereliction of\tthe duty  in that  behalf by  the appellant,
\nappropriate action would be taken by Endowment Department of
\nUttar Pradesh Government in accordance with law. But so long
\nas he maintains and administers the property for the benefit
\nand for\t the purpose  for which\t they were  endowed,  he  is
\nentitled to  manage as\ta shebait  for and  on behalf of the
\ndeity, Lord Krishna and Radha.\n<\/p>\n
     The appeal\t is accordingly\t allowed. The  judgment\t and
\ndecree of  the High  Court stands  set aside and that of the
\ntrial Court  stands restored.  But,  in\t the  circumstances,
\nwithout costs.\n<\/p>\n
CA No. 4173 of 1983\n<\/p>\n
——————–\n<\/p>\n
     In view of the above order, the appeal is dismissed. No
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997 Bench: K. R Amaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad PETITIONER: KALYAN DAS ANR. RAMBIR DAS & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMBIR DAS & ANR. KALYAN DAS ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/02\/1997 BENCH: K. R AMASWAMY, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-27T13:34:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T13:34:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997\"},\"wordCount\":4895,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997\",\"name\":\"Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-27T13:34:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-27T13:34:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997","datePublished":"1997-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T13:34:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997"},"wordCount":4895,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997","name":"Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-27T13:34:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kalyan-das-anr-rambir-das-anr-vs-rambir-das-anr-kalyan-das-anr-on-19-february-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kalyan Das Anr. Rambir Das & Anr vs Rambir Das & Anr. Kalyan Das Anr on 19 February, 1997"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197627","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=197627"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197627\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}