Hindu religious and charitable endowments

1. Meaning and creation of an endowment

An endowment is a dedication of property for religious or charitable purposes. The Hindu texts speak of ishta (sacrifices and Vedic rites) and purtta (works of public utility such as tanks, rest-houses, temples and feeding the poor). An endowment needs:

• a clear dedication with intention to divest oneself of the property;
• certainty of the object (a religious or charitable purpose recognised by Hindu law) and of the property;
• capacity: the founder must be of sound mind and a major; he can dedicate only property he owns.

No writing is necessary for a dedication made during life; it may be proved by conduct and long user. A dedication by will must comply with the law of wills. Dedication may be complete (the property vests in the deity) or partial (the property remains with the family, subject to a charge for the deity's worship).

2. Public and private endowments

The distinction turns on who the beneficiaries are. In a public endowment they are the general public or a section of it, such as the followers of a sect; in a private endowment they are specific individuals, usually the members of the founder's family. In Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, 1956 INSC 51, AIR 1957 SC 133, the Court held that the test is whether the right of worship is in the public or in a determinate family, and treated as relevant the founder's intention, the way the temple has been used, whether the public worships there as of right, the location and structure of the temple, and whether the management has been in the hands of outsiders. A temple founded by one man was held to be a public temple because the public had worshipped there for long as of right.

• Public endowments are subject to the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 (and similar Acts in other States), and to suits under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for removal of trustees, settlement of schemes and accounts.
• Private endowments are outside those Acts and section 92. The family may by consensus end a private endowment, which a public one cannot.

3. The idol as a juristic person

The Privy Council in Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925) held that a Hindu idol, once consecrated, is a juristic entity with the power of suing and being sued, its interests attended to by the person in charge of it, and that it has a will of its own as to its location, so a shebait cannot remove it at his pleasure. The ownership of dedicated property vests in the idol in an ideal sense; possession and management are with the shebait.

The Supreme Court has built on this:

• Bishwanath v. Shri Thakur Radhaballabhji, 1967 INSC 32, AIR 1967 SC 1044: the idol is in the position of a minor; where the shebait acts adversely to it, a worshipper may sue as next friend to recover its property.
• Ram Jankijee Deities v. State of Bihar, 1999 INSC 237, (1999) 5 SCC 50: an image becomes a juristic person on consecration (prana pratishtha); what matters is the dedication and the belief of the worshippers, not the form of the image.
• Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass, 2000 INSC 166, (2000) 4 SCC 146: the Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person; recognition depends on the reverence and use, not on the object being an idol.
• M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 INSC 1231, (2020) 1 SCC 1 (Ayodhya): the deity Ram Lalla Virajman is a juristic person, but the land, the birthplace, is not; juristic personality is conferred on the purpose of the endowment as embodied in the idol, so that the law can protect it.

4. The shebait

The shebait is the person who serves the deity and manages its property. He is appointed as the founder directs; failing directions, the office goes to the founder and his heirs. Women can be shebaits. In Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick, 1951 INSC 28, AIR 1951 SC 293, the Court held that shebaitship combines office and property: it carries duties of worship and management and also a beneficial interest (the right to residence, emoluments and a share of offerings). Being property, it devolves by inheritance, and a widow could succeed to it.

Powers and duties of the shebait:

• to arrange the worship (seva puja) and festivals of the deity;
• to manage, protect and recover the deity's property, and to sue on its behalf;
• to grant leases in the ordinary course;
• to alienate deity property only for legal necessity or benefit of the deity, on the same principles as a karta's power (Hunoomanpersaud, applied to shebaits by the Privy Council in Prosunno Kumari Debya v. Golab Chand Baboo, 1875);
• he cannot transfer the office itself for value, though a transfer to the next shebait in the interest of the deity has been allowed;
• he can be removed for mismanagement or breach of duty by suit.

5. The mahant

A math is a monastic institution presided over by a spiritual teacher for the teaching of a particular school of religious philosophy. Its head is the mahant (also called matadhipati or swami). He is both spiritual preceptor and manager of the math's property.

• Not a trustee. In Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Balusami Ayyar (1921) the Privy Council held that a mahant is not a trustee in the English sense. The property is vested in the math as an institution; the mahant manages it and has a beneficial interest in the surplus for his personal needs and dignity, consistent with his position.
• Office and property. In Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 1954 INSC 26, AIR 1954 SC 282, the Court held that the mahantship, like shebaitship, combines office and property: the mahant has a right to the math's property as head of the institution, and that right is property protected by the Constitution. It upheld State supervision of the secular management of maths under Article 26(d), but struck down provisions of the Madras Act that interfered with matters of religion.
• Succession. By the custom of the math, usually by nomination of a disciple (chela) by the reigning mahant; failing nomination, by election by the disciples or the heads of affiliated maths. The office is not heritable in the ordinary way.
• Powers. To manage the property, receive offerings, and spend on the purposes of the math and his own reasonable needs; to alienate only for legal necessity or the benefit of the math.
• Duties and removal. To maintain the religious teaching and worship of the math and to preserve its property. He can be removed for misconduct, alienation in breach of trust or neglect of duty, in a suit under section 92 CPC or under the State Act.

6. Problem

S, the hereditary shebait of a family temple, sells two acres of the deity's land to pay off his personal debts. A regular worshipper wants to recover the land. Advise.

Issue. Whether the sale binds the deity, and whether a worshipper can sue.

Law. A shebait may alienate deity property only for legal necessity or the benefit of the deity; the deity, like a minor, may sue through a next friend where the shebait acts adversely: Bishwanath v. Thakur Radhaballabhji.

Application. Payment of the shebait's personal debts is neither a necessity of the deity nor for its benefit. The buyer could not show a bona fide inquiry into any necessity of the deity. The shebait, having made the sale, will not sue to set it aside himself, which is the situation in which the worshipper may sue as the deity's next friend.

Conclusion. The sale does not bind the deity. The worshipper may sue on the deity's behalf to recover the land, and may also seek S's removal.

How this is examined

“Mahant” was a short note in January 2026; write the meaning of a math, the mahant's position as in Vidya Varuthi and Shirur Mutt, succession, powers and removal. Essays: “Distinguish between public and private endowments” (Deoki Nandan) and “Idol as a juristic person”. Short notes: “Shebait”, “Shebaitship as property”.