Profulla Chorone v. Satya Chorone (AIR 1979 SC 1682)
Supreme Court of India
1979
AIR 1979 SC 1682
Hindu Law • Trusts • Religious Endowments
7 min read
By Gulzar Hashmi • India • Published: 22 Oct 2025
Shebaiti Rights
Debutter Property
Trustees vs Shebaits
Locus Standi
Arbitration Award
Quick Summary
The founder dedicated a big house to a deity. He named trustees to manage it, but his will did not say who would be shebaits. Later, trustees tried to evict a family member.
- Rule: If the will is silent, shebaiti rights go to the founder’s natural heirs.
- Standing: Only shebaits can sue for the deity. Trustees manage but cannot sue as if they were shebaits.
- Outcome: The trustees’ suit failed. The arbitration award giving rooms to a co-shebait stood.
Issues
- Did the will vest shebaiti rights in trustees or did they pass to the founder’s heirs?
- Could trustees sue for possession on behalf of the deity without making the shebaits parties?
Rules
- Succession of Shebaitship: If the founder does not dispose of shebaiti rights, they devolve on natural heirs under Hindu Law.
- Trustees vs Shebaits: Title to debutter property is in the deity; the right to sue is with shebaits, not trustees.
- Proper Parties: All shebaits are necessary parties. A suit without them is defective.
Exam Tip: “Silent will → heirs as shebaits.” Look for express words giving shebaitship to others.
Facts — Timeline
View Image1898 (4 & 6 Jun): Two wills by Durga Charan Requitte; Chandernagore house dedicated as debutter; trustees named for management but no express grant of shebaitship.
27 Aug 1898: Founder dies; trustees take charge; worship continues.
1934: Family dispute → arbitration; rooms allotted to members including Satya Chorone.
1959: Trustees sue for eviction at Hooghly, claiming exclusive control for the deity.
Trial & First Appeal: Suit dismissed; heirs are shebaits; trustees lack locus; award binding.
Second Appeal (HC): Partial relief to trustees for some rooms; award upheld for others.
Supreme Court: Allows defendant’s appeal; dismisses trustees’ suit entirely.
Arguments — Appellants vs Respondent
Trustees (Plaintiffs)
- Absolute dedication; trustees manage for deity; arbitration not binding on deity.
- Right to evict occupant to protect debutter property.
Satya Chorone (Defendant)
- Shebaitship devolved on heirs; he is a co-shebait in possession.
- Trustees have no locus to sue for the deity; all shebaits are necessary parties.
- 1934 award valid; trustees accepted and acted upon it.
Judgment
View Judgment Image- Shebaitship: Will did not transfer it to trustees; it passed to heirs.
- Locus: Only shebaits can sue for the deity’s property and reliefs. Trustees cannot evict a co-shebait.
- Parties: All shebaits were necessary; non-joinder made the suit defective.
- Award: 1934 arbitration award binding; trustees had accepted it.
Result: Supreme Court dismissed the trustees’ suit; defendant’s appeal allowed; no order as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
Silent will → heirs become shebaits. Trusteeship is not shebaitship. Title is in the deity; representation in court is by shebaits. Without impleading them, a suit fails.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies the default rule for shebaitship succession.
- Draws a clean line between trustees and shebaits.
- Highlights necessary parties in religious endowment suits.
Key Takeaways
- 1 Will silent? Heirs are shebaits by default.
- 2 Trustees manage; shebaits represent the deity in court.
- 3 All shebaits are necessary parties.
- 4 Binding awards accepted by the estate will be respected.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “SILENT WILL → HEIR SHEBAIT.”
- SILENT WILL → no express grant of shebaitship.
- HEIR SHEBAIT → heirs take shebaitship under Hindu Law.
- Trustees ≠ shebaits unless will says so.
3-Step Hook:
- Read the will: Any express words giving shebaitship?
- Name the right holder: deity (title) + shebaits (sue/represent).
- Check parties: Have all shebaits been impleaded?
IRAC Outline
Issue
Who held shebaiti rights and who could sue for the deity’s property?
Rule
Silent will → heirs as shebaits; trustees manage only; shebaits must be parties to sue.
Application
No express shebait grant; trustees had earlier accepted the 1934 award; defendant was a co-shebait in occupation.
Conclusion
Trustees lacked locus; suit defective for non-joinder; entire suit dismissed.
Glossary
- Debutter Property
- Property dedicated to a Hindu deity; legal title is in the deity.
- Shebait
- Person who manages the deity’s property and represents the deity in law.
- Trustee
- Manager under a trust; does not get shebaitship unless expressly given.
- Locus Standi
- Legal standing to bring a suit.
Student FAQs
No. Trusteeship is separate. Shebaitship must be clearly given, else it goes to heirs.
Shebaits. They represent the deity since the title is in the deity.
Yes, if valid and accepted by the estate, courts will respect it.
Trustees lacked standing and did not implead all shebaits—so the suit was not properly framed.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now