JUDGMENT Mookerjee, J. - This is an appeal on behalf of the Defendants in an action for rent of a holding situated within a putni. The Plaintiff-Respondent alleges that the putni was acquired in 1866 by her father-in-law Gobinda Nath Gupta as shebait of idol Sarbamangala, that after his death his son Kasi Nath succeeded as shebait and upon the death of the latter, the Plaintiff as his widow became the shebait. The Defendant resists the claim, inter alia, on the ground that the suit is barred by the provisions of sec. 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, because the Plaintiff when she succeeded as shebait did not give the notice mentioned in sec. 15 of the Act. The Courts below have overruled this objection and made a decree in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendants have appealed to this Court, and on their behalf it is argued that the Plaintiff is not entitled to recover the rent claimed till notice has been served in accordance with sec. 15 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. In our opinion, this contention is well founded and ought to prevail. Sec. 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act provides that a person becoming entitled to a permanent tenure by succession shall not be entitled to recover by suit any rent payable to him as the holder of the tenure until the Collector has received the notice and fees referred to in sec. 15. In order to determine whether this section applies to a case like the present where one shebait of debutter property is succeeded by another, it is necessary to determine the position of a shebait in relation to debutter property. For this purpose it is sufficient to refer to the case of Jagadindra Roy v. Hemanta Kumari 8 C. W. N. 809: s, c. L. R. 31 I. A. 203 (1904). For this purpose it is sufficient to refer to the case of Jagadindra Roy v. Hemanta Kumari 8 C. W. N. 809: s, c. L. R. 31 I. A. 203 (1904). where their Lordships of the Judicial Committee after pointing out that an idol may be regarded as a judicial person capable of holding property, though it is only in an ideal sense that property is so held, observed that in cases where the religious dedication is of the strictest character, " the possession and management of the dedicated property belong to the shebait, and this carries with it the right to bring whatever suits are necessary for the protection of the property; every such right of suit is vested in the shebait, not in the idol." This view is not inconsistent with that taken by their Lordships in the case of Shibessoree v. Mothoora Nath 13 M. I. A. 270 (1869), where it was observed that when a tenure was dedicated to the religious services of an idol, though the rents constitute in legal contemplation the property of the idol, yet the shebait has not the legal property but title as manager of the religious endowment. This view appears to have been affirmed by their Lordships in Prosunno Kumari v. Golab Chand I. L. R 2 I. A. 145 (1875). We must hold accordingly upon the authority of the decision of the Judicial Committee in Jagadindra v. Hemanta 8 C. W. N. 809: s. c. L. R. 31 I. A. 203 (1904), that the right to possession and management of the dedicated property belongs to the present Plaintiff and that the right to bring this suit for rent is vested in her and not in the idol. It follows consequently that sec. 16 is applicable and is an effective bar to the recovery of the rent claimed. We may add that if regard be had to the policy which underlies sec. It follows consequently that sec. 16 is applicable and is an effective bar to the recovery of the rent claimed. We may add that if regard be had to the policy which underlies sec. 15 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, namely, that in the case of a succession to a permanent tenure, the superior landlord of the tenure-holder may be apprised as to who is or claims to be the new tenant and to whom he has to look for payment of his rent, it is obvious that in this respect there ought not to be any distinction between secular and dedicated property; it is quite as much necessary in the one case as in the other, for the superior landlord to know the name of the person who has succeeded to the tenure and who is thenceforth to be liable for the due discharge of the rent. In our opinion the language of sec. 16 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the reason for the rule contained therein are both in favour of the view we take. We may further add that although sec. 16 does not preclude a party from instituting a suit, but merely debars him from obtaining a decree before the notice and the fees are received by the Collector, Kalihur Ghose v. Umae Patwary I. L. R. 24 Cal. 241 (1896)., the Plaintiff-Respondent has not asked for any opportunity to enable her to comply with the requirements of sec. 15. 2. The result therefore is that this appeal must be allowed, the decrees made by the Courts below discharged, and the suit dismissed, with costs in all the Courts.