Third Party Suits In Deity's Name Permitted Only When 'Sebait' Loses Authority: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that a third party may institute proceedings in the deity's name only in exceptional circumstances where the lawful sebait has lost or disabled himself from exercising his authority. The division bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya observed, "Only in exceptional circumstances, where the sebait does not or by his own act, deprives himself of the power of representing the deity, a third party is competent to institute a suit in the name of the deity to protect the debottar property". The present writ petitioner, in its original application, sought a direction from the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer to consider the representation of the petitioner to the effect that his name ought to be recorded as Raiyat in respect of disputed plots. On the other hand, the original applications filed by private respondents seeking a declaration that the disputed plots were not vested with the State and a declaration to record their names as Raiyat with an injunction to protect their possession. The Tribunal dismissed the original application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain the same. On the other hand, the Tribunal granted limited relief by holding that the subject property was not vested in the State. The counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case, the private respondent claimed to purchase the subject property, which was dedicated to the deity, from the heir of one of the original sebaits by altering the character of the property to a secular property. The counsel for the petitioner argued that where the sebaits fail to protect the debtor's property, third parties may act on behalf of the deity. It was further contended that the alleged transfer of debottar property to the private respondent was void for want of court permission and that there were serious discrepancies regarding Arpannama (deed of dedication). The petitioner argued that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by conclusively deciding the issue of locus standi without allowing the BL and LRO to first consider the representation. The State and private respondents, however, supported the Tribunal decision, asserting that the determination of locus standi was a threshold issue and that the Tribunal acted within its authority. The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal authority to represent the deity. Merely claiming to be the President of the committee or relying on the limited public user of the water body associated with the property did not confer any right to act as sebait or next friend of the deity. Relying on the settled principles of Hindu Law, the Court reiterated that the deity can ordinarily be represented only by its duly appointed sebait, and any third party may act as next friend only with the permission of a competent court. No such appointment or authorization was shown in the present case. The court further observed that the property was a private debottar property, not a public one, and therefore did not vest any enforceable rights in the general public or in a self-styled committee. Rejecting the argument of jurisdictional overreach, the court held that the tribunal was justified in examining the locus stand at the threshold. Directing the consideration of representation made by a person without standing would only result in futile proceedings and unnecessary litigation. "Instead of generating a futile exercise by directing the representation to be considered at the behest of a person who has no locus standi, thereby giving rise to a new round of litigation unnecessarily, the learned Tribunal was justified in nipping the issue at the bud, since the claim of locus standi of the petitioner Kalyan Das is frivolous even on the basis of the materials before us", the bench added. Finding no illegality or excess of jurisdiction, the High Court affirmed the Tribunal's judgment. Case Title: Sri Sri Dodhimohan Jew v The State of West Bengal [2026:CHC-AS:100-DB] Click here to read/download the Order

Third Party Suits In Deity's Name Permitted Only When 'Sebait' Loses Authority: Calcutta High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags