- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2085 OF 2006 (DEC) BETWEEN: SMT. BASAMMA W/O LATE RUDRAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS 1(a) SMT. PARVATAMMA W/O THIRTHAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 1(a)(i) MAHESHWARAPPA S/O PARVATHAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O NANDIGUDI, HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE. 1(b) MANJAMMA W/O HEMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(b)(i) MANJAPPA S/O MANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O NANDIGUDI HARIHAR TALUK DIST: DAVANAGERE. 1(b)(ii) BASAVARAJAPPA S/O MANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O NANDIGUDI, HARIHAR TALUK Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 DIST: DEVANAGERE. 1(c) SMT. DAKSHAYANAMMA W/O RUDRAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY LRS 1(c)(i) VEERESH S/O DAKSHAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT HULIGENAHALLI HARIHAR TALUK DISTRICT DAVANGERE 1(c)(ii) PRAKASH S/O DAKSHAYANAMMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT HULIGENAHALLI HARIHAR TALUK DISTRICT DAVANGERE 2. SRI. ONKARAPPA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS 2(a) NEHARAPPA, S/O LATE ONKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST 2(b) MALLESHAPPA S/O LATE ONKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS AGRICULTURIST 2 (c) SMT. YASHODAMMAA D/O LATE ONKARAPPA W/O CHITRAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS AGRICULTURIST ALL ARE R/O KOTEMALLUR VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 2(c)(i) CHITRASHEKHARAPPA S/O LATE SRI. FAKIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2(c)(ii) HALESH S/O CHITRASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O KOTEMALLUR VILLAGE HANALI TALUK, DIST : DAVANAGERE. 3 SRI NAGAPPA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 3(a) CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BHADRAVATHI DIST : SHIMOGA - 577 303. 3(b) RAJU S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT BHADRAVATHI DIST : SHIMOGA - 577 303. 4. SRI. ERAPPA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA SINCE DEAD BY LR'S 4(a) BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O KOTEMALLUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HONNALI TALUK DISTRICT - DAVANGERE - 577 217. 4(b) RUDRAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O KOTEMALLUR VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, HONNALI TALUK DISTRICT - 577 217. 5. SRI. MANJAPPA S/O LATE RUDRAPPA AGE:AGRICULTURISTS R/O KOTEMALLUR VILLAGE BELIMALLUR POST KASABA HOBLI, HONNALI TALUK DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 217. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NANDISH PATIL.,ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A4 (VK NOT FILED) SRI. DEVANDRAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR A5) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DAVANAGERE-577 001 3. THE TAHSILDAR HONNALI TALUK HONNALIDIST:DAVANAGERE PIN CODE-577 217. 4. D MAHESHWARAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGE:MAJOR OCC:AGRICULTURIST - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 R/O KOTEMALLUR VILLAGE HONNALI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 217. 5. MAHESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE (DELETED) REPTD BY ITS CONVENOR B.G.MAHESHWARAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA R/O KOTEMALLUR TQ. HONALLI, DIST:DAVANAGERE- 577 217. 6. VEERABHADRASWAMY TEMPLE (DELETED) REPTD BY ITS CONVENOR B.B.MAHESHWARAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA R/O KOTEMALLUR, TQ:HONALLI, DIST:DAVANAGERE - 577 217 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.A. MACHAKANUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANE., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R4; V/O DATED 17.12.2007, R5 & R6 ARE DELETED) THIS RFA IS FILED U/S 96 R/W ORDER 41 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.07.2006 PASSED IN O.S.NO.479/2002 (OLD NO.93/2002) ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) HARIHAR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2006 passed in O.S.No.479/2002 (old No.93/2002) on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Harihar (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court' for short) in and by which, the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent and mandatory injunction. 2. Subject matter of the suit are the following properties; Schedule 'A' The agricultural dry land bearing Sy.No.29/2 measuring 1 acres and 11 guntas, situated in Kotemallur village, Honnali Taluk, Bounded by: East : Property of Kakkadur Siddappa Gowda West : Properties of Kambali Thimmanna and Halaiah North : Channenahalli Hanumanthappa's property South : Cart Road. Schedule 'B' The agricultural dry land bearing Sy.No11/5 measuring 1 acres and 2 guntas, situated in Kotemallur Village, Honnali Taluk, bounded by : East : Property of Kakkadur Siddappa Gowda West : Thunga- Bhadra River Bund North : Property of Benakappa South : Thunga- Bhadra River Bund - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties') 3. Case of the plaintiffs is that the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties originally belonged to one Smt.Sankavva, w/o Basappa Sunkada. The said Smt.Sankavva is the maternal aunt of (mother's sister) of one Sri.Rudrappa. That the said Sri.Rudrappa is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 respectively. That said Smt.Sankavva out of her natural love and affection towards the said Sri. Rudrappa had conveyed suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties in his favour in terms of a registered deed of sale dated 05.06.1972. Sri.Rudrappa during his life time had executed two registered deeds of gift both dated 28.03.1977 in terms of which he conveyed schedule 'A' property in favour of deity Sri.Maheshwara Swamy vide S.R.No.938/1976-77 and 'B' schedule property in favour of deity Veerabhadreshwara Swamy vide S.R.No.939/1976-77. 4. That suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were within the Revenue District of Shivamogga. The Assistant Commissioner, Sub-Division, Shivamogga had doubted the legality and validity of the said deeds of gift executed by - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 Sri.Rudrappa in favour of the aforesaid 2 deities and apparently he had sought for clarification from the Deputy Commissioner in this regard vide communication dated 08.11.1978. That the Deputy Commissioner, Shivamogga on verification had issued a memo dated 3/6.2.1979 holding that the deities cannot hold the lands during relevant period pursuant to the deeds of gift executed by Sri.Rudrappa and he allowed Sri.Rudrappa to retain the land and to pay/credit a sum of Rs.75/- p.a. in the name of deities if he desired. That by virtue of said memo of the Deputy Commissioner the deeds of gift executed by Sri.Rudrappa, were not accepted and they were not acted upon. That Sri.Rudrappa thereafter continued to be in possession of the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties till his demise on 06.04.1980. Thereafter, the plaintiffs being his legal heirs have inherited the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and are in possession of the same. 5. Things stood thus, though the aforesaid deeds of gift were neither acted upon nor accepted, names of the aforesaid deities were mutated in the revenue records vide Mutation Register MR No.34/1999-2000. That plaintiffs had filed petition objecting the said entries. Taking undue - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 advantage of this situation, defendant No.4 had filed an application under Section 7(A) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Plaintiffs having noticed the improper entries in the revenue records in respect of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties sought rectification of the same by filing an application on 29.11.2000 before defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 has not taken any action. Hence, the suit seeking following reliefs; "a) Declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit "A" and "B" schedule properties. b) Declaring that the gift deed purportedly executed by the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the rest of the plaintiffs late Rudrappa Quo-suit A Schedule Property vide S.R.No.938/1976-77 dtd. 28-3-1977 in favour of the deity Maheshwara Swamy is null and void, unenforceable, non- est in law and does not affect the right, title or interest of the plaintiffs and in as much as not binding on them; c) Declaring that the gift deed purportedly executed by the husband of the 1 plaintiff and father of the rest of the plaintiffs late Rudrappa quo-suit B Schedule Property vide S.R.No.939/1976-77 dtd. 28-3-1977 in favour of the deity Veerabhadra Swamy is null and void unenforceable non-est in law and does not affect the right, title or interest of the plaintiffs and in as much as not binding on them; d) Directing the defendants No.1 to 3 to mutate the khatha in the name of the plaintiffs in the revenue quo-suit "A" and "B" schedule properties by a decree of mandatory injunction; e) Restraining the defendants No.4 his men, servants supporters, agents, henchmen or any persons in his behalf in any way interfering with the plaintiffs actual, physical and possession and cultivation of suit "A" and "B" schedule - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 properties in any manner whatsoever by a decree of permanent injunction. f) Directing the defendants to pay all costs and expenses of the litigation; and g) Pass such appropriate orders that this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice." 6. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 the State/authorities have not filed written statement. 7. Defendant No.4 has filed written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that he is in possession of the land as a tenant and that his application was considered by the Land Tribunal. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 8. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for its consideration; "1)
ಾಂಕ: 5-6-1972 ರಂದು zÁªÁzÀ ಆಗಳನು ೕಮ ಸಂಕವ ೋಂ ಬಸಪ ಸುಂಕ ಇವಳ! ೋಂ"ಾ#ಸಲಟ& "ಾನ ಪತದ ಮೂಲಕ "ಾ(ಾದ ಆಗಳನು ಮೃತ ರುದಪ ಇವ*+ೆ ೊ,&ರು-ಾ.ೆಂತ (ಾ
ಯರು 0ಾ1ೕತುಪ2"ಾ34ೆ5ೕ? 2)
ಾಂಕ: 28-3-1977 ರಂದು ಮ6ೇಶರ0ಾ8 6ಾಗೂ 9ೕರಭದ0ಾ8 ಈ "ೇವರುಗಳ 6ೆಸ*<ಂದ ಮೃತ ರುದಪ ಇವರು ಬ4ೆದು ೋಂ"ಾ#ೊಟ& "ಾನಪತಗಳ! ರದು3=ಾದ> ಇದು3, ಅವ@ಗಳ! ತಮ+ೆ ಬಂಧನಾ* ಇರುವ@
ಲB ಅಂತ (ಾ
ಯರು 0ಾ1ೕತುಪ2"ಾ34ೆ5ೕ? 3) "ಾ(ಾದ ಆಗಳ! ತಮC ವD(ಾಟು, ಉಪFೋಗೆG 4ೇ ಪ(ಾ
ಯು 9ಾಾರಣ ಹರಕJ Kಾ2"ಾ3ೆಂತ (ಾ
ಯರು 0ಾ1ೕತುಪ2"ಾ34ೆ5ೕ? - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 4)
ಾಂಕ:28-3-1977 ರಂದು ಮ6ೇಶರ0ಾ8 6ಾಗೂ 9ೕರಭದ0ಾ8 "ೇವರುಗಳ 6ೆಸ*<ಂದ ೋಂ"ಾ#ಸಲಟ& "ಾನಪತದ ಪಾರ ಸಾLರದವರು KಾMೕಕ4ಾNದು3 6ಾಗೂ "ಾ(ಾದ ಆಗಳ 0ಾOೕಾನುಭವದMBದು3 ಮತು ಸಾLರದ ಪರ(ಾN ಆ "ೇವ0ಾPನದ ಕ8,ಯವರು ವD(ಾಟು, ಉಪFೋಗ Kಾಡು"ಾ34ೆಂತ 1 *ಂದ 3ೇ ಪ(ಾ
ಯರು ಇವರು 0ಾ1ೕತುಪ2"ಾ34ೆ5ೕ? 5) 4ೇ ಪ(ಾ
ಯು -ಾನು "ಾ(ಾದ ಅಗಳನು 4ೈ-ಾS ಾ-ೆ#ಂದ 0ಾಗುವT Kಾಡುದು3 6ಾಗೂ ಆ ಜ8ೕನುಗT+ೆ 4ೈತ<ರು-ೆೕೆಂತ 0ಾ1ೕತುಪ2"ಾ34ೆ5ೕ? 6) ಅವಶV ಪW+ಾರರನು "ಾ(ಾದMB 0ೇಪLXೆ Kಾಡ"ೇ ಇದು3ದ*ಂದ "ಾ(ೆ ಊZLತ(ಾಗುವ@
ಲB ಅಂತ ಪ(ಾ
ಯರು ದ3Kಾ2"ಾ34ೆ5ೕ? 7) "ಾ(ೆ+ೆ ಸಾರಣ ಉಂ[ಾN"ೆ5ೕ? 8) "ಾ(ಾದ ಆಗಳನು ಸ*\ಾN KೌMೕಕ*ಸ^ಾN"ೆ5ೕ? 6ಾಗೂ ಸ*\ಾದ ಾV\ಾಂಗ ಶುಲG ೊಡ^ಾN"ೆ5ೕ? 9) ಈ "ಾ(ೆಯನು ನXೆಸಲು ಈ ಾV\ಾಲಯೆG ಅOಾರ ಇ"ೆ5ೕ? 10) "ಾ(ಾದMB =ೇ2ೆ Kಾ2ದ ಪ*6ಾರಗಳನು (ಾ
ಯರು ಪXೆಯಲು ಅಹL4ೇ? 11) ಅಂಮ ಆ"ೇಶ ಅಥ(ಾ 2`G ಏನು? ಸೂಚೆ: 9(ಾ"ಾಂಶ ನಂ.5 ಇದನು cಾಥ8ಕ 9(ಾ"ಾಂಶ ಅಂತ ಪ*ಗd 9eಾರfೆ+ಾN ೇ8ಸ^ಾN"ೆ." 9. The plaintiff No.5 examined himself as PW1. Two witness have been examined as PWs2 and 3 and have exhibited 25 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. The defendant No.4 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 examined himself as DW.1, four witnesses as DW.2 to 5 and have exhibited 14 documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D14. 10. On appreciation of evidence the trial Court answered the issue Nos.1, 4, 6 and 9 in the affirmative and issue Nos.2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 in the negative. Consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants at the outset submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the deeds of gift cannot be acted upon as the same have not been accepted in the manner known to law. That the deity being juristic person cannot said to have accepted the gift. This fact of the matter was rightly appreciated by the Assistant Commissioner who had sought for clarification from the District Commissioner who in turn had issued a memo confirming that the deeds of gift had not been acted upon. He submits that such memo had been issued during the life time of Sri. Rudrappa, therefore, the deeds of gift have never come into existence in the manner known to - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 law. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the said suit rejecting the contention of the appellants. Therefore, seeks for allowing of the appeal. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent /State on the other hand vehemently submitted that the deeds of gift were executed and execution was accepted and admitted on behalf of the deity represented by convener of said temples. The said documents are duly attested in the manner known to law. It is settled position of law that deity though juristic person would be entitled in law to hold, possess and alienate the immovable property through its duly constituted representatives. Therefore, he submits trial Court having taken into consideration of this factual and legal aspect of the matter has come to just conclusion warranting no interference. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 on the other hand submits that though the application and appeal filed by defendant No.4 seeking grant of rights as a tenant having been rejected, he still continued to be in possession of the land in terms of the lease granted by the State on auction basis. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 That the claim of the plaintiffs/appellants that they being in possession of the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties is denied. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 14. Heard. Perused the records. 15. By the very claim made by the plaintiffs/appellants in the plaint as noted above admittedly Sri.Rudrappa had indeed executed deeds of gift produced at Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Thus, execution of the deeds of gift by Sri.Rudrappa is not disputed by the plaintiffs/appellants. 16. Their only contention is that said gifts had not been accepted and acted upon inasmuch as deities are purportedly incapable of accepting the gifts. 17. The only point therefore arise for consideration is: "Whether the gift executed by Rudrappa in favour of deities is valid, subsisting, or the same has not been accepted as contended by the appellants?" 18. One of the vehement submissions of the learned counsel for plaintiffs/appellants is that the deity not being a living person cannot be said to have accepted the gift which is - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 a natural act and a requirement under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 19. The trial Court has adverted to the specific issue which is framed at issue No.2. While answering the said issue, the trial Court has adverted to the pleading, evidence as well as the position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Jankijee Deities and others Vs State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1989 SC 2131, Shri.Kalanka Devi Sansthan Vs TheMaharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 439 and Deoki Nandan Vs Murlidhar and others reported in AIR 1957 SC 133. The trial Court has also referred to Sections 404 and 406 of Mulla's Hindu Law (18th Edition). 20. Perusal of certified copies of deeds of the gift produced at Exs.P2 and P3 indicate that donee, the deity, is represented by one B.G.Maheshwarappa. The said documents also indicate that there are about 21 witnesses. 21. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Jankijee Deities (supra) at paragraph 11 has held as under: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 "11. Before proceeding with the matter any further apropos the judgment under appeal, it would be convenient to note however that Hindu law recognises a Hindu idol as a juridical subject being capable in law of holding property by reason of the Hindu Shastras following the status of a legal person in the same way as that of a natural person. The Privy Council in the case of Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick [(1925) 52 IA 245] observed: “One of the questions emerging at this point, is as to the nature of such an idol, and the services due thereto. A Hindu idol is, according to long-established authority, founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus, and the recognition thereof by courts of law, a ‘juristic entity’. It has a juridical status with the power of suing and being sued. Its interests are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who is in law its manager with all the powers which would, in such circumstances, on analogy, be given to the manager of the estate of an infant heir. It is unnecessary to quote the authorities; for this doctrine, thus simply stated, is firmly established. A useful narrative of the concrete realities of the position is to be found in the judgment of Mukerji, J. in Rambrahma Chatterjee v. Kedar Nath Banerjee [(1922) 36 CLJ 478, 483] : ‘We need not describe here in detail the normal type of continued worship of a consecrated image — the sweeping of the temple, the process of smearing, the removal of the previous day's offerings of flowers, the presentation of fresh flowers, the respectful oblation of rice with flowers and water, and other like practices. It is sufficient to state that the deity is, in short, conceived as a living being and is treated in the same way as the master of the house would be treated by his humble servant. The daily routine of life is gone through with minute accuracy; the vivified image is regaled with the necessaries and luxuries of life in due succession, even to the changing of clothes, the offering of cooked and uncooked food, and the retirement to rest. The person founding a deity and becoming responsible for these duties is de facto and in common parlance called shebait. This responsibility is, of course, maintained by a pious Hindu, either by the personal performance of the religious rites or — as in the case of Sudras, to which caste the parties belonged — by the employment of a - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 Brahmin priest to do so on his behalf. Or the founder, any time before his death, or his successor likewise, may confer the office of shebait on another.” 22. Similar is the view taken in the case of Shri.Kalanka Devi Sansthan (supra) at paragraph 5 has held as under: "5. It has next been contended that in the provision of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, public trusts of charitable nature were included among those who could claim possession from a tenant on the ground of personal cultivation. It is not possible to see how the provisions of a repealed statute which was no longer in force, after the enactment of the Act could be of any avail to the appellant. The decision in Ishwardas v. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal [1968 SCC OnLine SC 150 : (1968) 3 SCR 441] has also been referred to by the counsel for the appellant. In that case it was said that under Section 2(18) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act a trustee has been defined as meaning a person in whom either alone or in association with other persons the trust property is vested and includes a manager. In view of this definition the properties of the trusts vest in the managing trustee and he is the landlord under clause 32 of Section 2 of the Act. As he is the landlord, he can ask for a surrender from the tenant of the lands of the trust “to cultivate personally”. In the present case it is common ground that the Sansthan is a private trust and is not governed by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. The manager or the Wahiwatdar of the Sansthan cannot, therefore, fall within the definition of the word “trustee” as given in Section 2(18) of that Act. It may be mentioned that in Ishwardas case the Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the question whether a manager or a Shebait of the properties of an idol or the manager of the Sansthan can or cannot apply for surrender by a tenant of lands for personal cultivation. The distinction between a manager or a Shebait of an idol and a trustee where a trust has been created is well recognised. The properties of the trust in law vest in the trustee whereas in the case of an idol or a Sansthan they do not vest in the manager or the Shebait. It is the deity or the Sansthan which owns and holds the properties. It is only the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13855 RFA No. 2085 of 2006 possession and the management which vest in the manager." 23. Clearly the substratum of the dispute being deity incapable of holding the immovable property has been rightly declined and rejected by the trial Court. Since the controversy falls within this narrow compass and this being a pure question of law, in the absence of any averment, pleading or allegation with regard to validity or otherwise of execution of deeds of gift, this Court do not see any reason to interfere with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. Appeal fails and accordingly stands dismissed. Judgment and decree dated 28.07.2006 passed in O.S.No.479/2002 by the trial Court is confirmed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU/SBN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3