Where Idol Was Never Installed, No Juristic Person Came Into Existence; Devotion Alone Gives No Locus To Sue For Deity: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a deed of gift stipulates only that an idol will be installed on the property in future and no idol is ever consecrated or installed, no juristic person comes into existence in whom the property can vest, and persons professing devotion to the deity have no locus standi to sue on its behalf.

Justice Anil Kumar-X held,

“However, the plaintiffs themselves have admitted in the plaint that no idol of Lord Sri Ramchandra was ever consecrated or installed over the disputed property pursuant to the said gift deed. Thus, the very event upon which the alleged endowment was founded never came into existence. In the absence of installation and consecration of the idol, there was no juristic person in whom the property could vest or on whose behalf the present suit could be instituted.”

Plaintiffs, describing themselves as Hindus by birth with deep faith in Lord Rama and as the next friend of an idol of Lord Rama in Mirzapur, sued on behalf of the deity for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.

It was pleaded that Late Kedar Nath Mishra, who had taken a set of plots under a permanent lease dated 13^th March 1947, gifted them to Late Kailash Nath Agrawal by a deed dated 17^th August 1949 on the condition that an idol of Lord Rama be installed there. The deed made Kailash Nath Agrawal, the Manager, and barred him and his heirs from taking the income for themselves or altering the title.

The defendants, Kailash Nath Agrawal's legal heirs, were said to have partitioned the property among themselves and sold portions of it in breach of those conditions. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the defendants had ceased to have any right to continue as Managers. They sought an injunction against transfer or alienation, and a mandatory injunction directing the administrative authorities to take over the management of the property.

Defendants admitted the gift deed and the condition regarding the idol, but pleaded that no temple was ever built and no idol ever installed. It was argued that the condition in the gift deed was itself void, and they had dealt with the property openly as owners for decades. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs had no locus to sue either as next friends of the deity or under Order I Rule 8 CPC.

An application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was allowed and the plaint rejected in 2017, but that order was set aside in appeal and the defendants' First Appeal before the High Court followed. Deciding it, the High Court had held that the 1949 deed created a valid endowment in favour of Lord Sri Ramchandra, that the property vested in the deity as a juristic person, and that Section 92 CPC was not attracted as the endowment was private.

The Trial Court thereafter held that the deed was a personal gift creating no religious endowment. It found no temple and no idol, the defendants in possession and recorded in the revenue records, and held the restraint on alienation void under Sections 10 and 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, though the gift survived. It nonetheless decided locus standi in the plaintiffs' favour. The appellate court affirmed, adding that the suit suffered from non-joinder as no administrative authority had been impleaded.

Thereafter, a second appeal was filed before the High Court.

The Court held at the outset that none of the fourteen questions proposed by the appellants was a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC. Relying on Apex Court's decision in Sri Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons Ltd. vs. The Century Spinning and Manufacturing Company Ltd., it noted that a question must be debatable, unsettled by law or binding precedent, and material to the rights of the parties. It held that the questions raised only assailed the appreciation of evidence and the concurrent findings of fact.

On merits, the Court observed that the deed contemplated installation of an idol in future, and the plaintiffs admitted none was ever installed. It observed that no temple was built, no priest appointed and no provision made for worship or for the administration of a religious institution. Read with the continued possession of the property by the donee and his successors and the void restraint on alienation, the Court observed that this showed that the donor never intended a complete endowment and the deed was in substance a private gift.

“Once it stands established that no idol was ever installed and no juristic person ever came into existence, the very foundation of the suit disappears. Consequently, the plaintiffs had no locus standi to seek a declaration divesting the defendants of their rights over the property or to seek consequential reliefs of injunction.”

The Court rejected the appellants' reliance on the earlier decision first appeal, holding that it was rendered while testing an order under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, when the Court was confined to the averments in the plaint and could not adjudicate on their correctness.

“The observations made therein regarding the maintainability of the representative suit were only for the limited purpose of deciding whether the plaint was liable to be rejected at the threshold. They neither finally determined the nature of the deed dated 17.08.1949 nor conferred any substantive locus standi or vested any cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs.”

On non-joinder, the Court accepted the appellate court's finding, holding that a direction to the administration to take over the property could not be granted without the authorities before the Court, as a mandatory injunction operates in personam.

The Court also noted that the plaintiffs had claimed no independent right of worship, so the suit was not one to enforce such a right, and held that they were complete strangers to the title, possession and management of the property.

“Their claim was founded solely on their devotion towards Lord Sri Ramchandra, which, by itself, does not confer any enforceable civil right to question the ownership or management of private property.”

Holding further that the Trial Court, having rightly decided the first two issues against the plaintiffs, had erred in deciding the issue of locus standi in their favour, the Court dismissed the second appeal.

Case Title: Murti Shri Ram Chandra Ji Virajman And 6 Others v. Ashish and 19 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 581

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 581

Counsel for Appellant(s) :- Santosh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for Respondent(s) :- Himanshu Dubey, Vijay Anand Rai

Click Here To Read/Download Order