JUDGMENT Chunder, J. - This is an appeal against an. Appellate decree of the Subordinate Judge, First Court, Hooghly, reversing that of the Munsif, Second Court, Serampore. At the very beginning, we must compliment both the Courts below on the very impartial and detached view with which they dealt with the question involving worship of family Idol amongst the Hindus. 2. The facts briefly are as follows: The Bukshi family had several family Idols with debutter properties for their maintenance. The shebaitship followed the ordinary Hindu Law of succession. The Defendants belonged to the Ghose family which descended through the female line of the Bukshi family. The Plaintiffs who were of the Bukshi family and the Defendants inherited the shebaitship in shares which are not disputed according to the Hindu Law. It appears that one of the Ghose shebaits was Atul Krishna Ghosh who was carrying on properly the Deva seba. His son. Sukumar, who had come to Calcutta became a member of the Arya Samaj and married an Indian Christian lady who had got herself converted according to Arya Samaj rites. The marriage was celebrated according to Arya Samaj rites. It is now beyond dispute that the Brahmos, the Jains, and the Arya Samajists all belong to Hindu religion. Whether an Arya Samajist is a Hindu or not is a question which has been before the Courts, and it has been decided that an Arya Samajist is a Hindu, and the Hindu Law applies to him. Reference may be made to Ganga Sarat v. Musmt. Setaji (1985) All. L. J. 1175. We consider the decision to be correct. The trouble did not arise as regards the family Deities till the death of Atul in January, 1940. Sukumar, a member of the Arya Samaj, as his heir, became one of the shebaits, as the shebaitship devolved in this family according to the Hindu Law. The present case was started by the Plaintiffs on the ground that as an Arya Samajist, Sukumar did not believe in Idol worship in any form and, therefore, he was incapable and incompetent to manage the Deba seba and he should, therefore, be removed from his shebaitship. A permanent injunction was also asked for to restrain him from interfering with the performance of the Dev seba by the Plaintiffs. A permanent injunction was also asked for to restrain him from interfering with the performance of the Dev seba by the Plaintiffs. The Munsif, after a very long and painstaking review of the facts and the law, as far as he understood it, came to the conclusion that the Defendant No. 1 Sukumar should be removed and a permanent injunction granted as prayed for. The Subordinate Judge also after carefully and impartially considering the whole matter came to the conclusion that the decree of the Munsif should be reversed. Against the decree of the Subordinate Judge, the present appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiffs. 3. About the facts of the case, there is no dispute at this stage, and the point that arises is not exactly covered by authorities, but is a point of great importance to the Hindu Law, and perhaps may be of greater importance with the progress of time. The question is whether a Hindu who does not believe in a particular mode of worship is competent to inherit and to be the shebait of an Idol whose worship is carried on in violation of the principles which he himself believes. As an Arya Samajist, it is admitted that Sukumar does not at all believe in Idol worship. The case of the Plaintiffs is that as he does not believe in Idol worship, he cannot perform the worship of the Idol and as the worship of the Idol is part of the duty of the shebaitship, and as the right of inheritance of shebaitship is coupled with the duty to carry out Deva seba, he cannot succeed to the shebaitship, and he should be removed from his office as shebait. This contention is not sound, in our opinion. As an Arya Samajist, the Defendant remains a Hindu, and as he is a Hindu, governed by the Hindu Law, the devolution of shebaitship must be governed by the principles of Hindu Law. In the case of the worship of a Deity, rituals can be performed by a deputy, and in the case of a sudra, the worship of the Idol is generally carried on through a brahmin, as personal performance of the duties connected with worship are often not allowed to be performed by a sudra. In the case of the worship of a Deity, rituals can be performed by a deputy, and in the case of a sudra, the worship of the Idol is generally carried on through a brahmin, as personal performance of the duties connected with worship are often not allowed to be performed by a sudra. Therefore, it is not essential that there should be personal performance of the duties connected with the actual ritualistic worship of the Deity by the shebait unless, of course, there is anything in the terms of the endowment that such should be done by the shebait. If there is any such strict term to the contrary in the endowment, then whoever wants to succeed to the shebaitship may have to comply with such terms, but where succession is according to the ordinary principles of the Hindu Law, as the Hindu Law allows a division of the duty of actual performance of the rituals, and the duty of managing the property of the Idol, mere incapacity to perform personally the rituals of worship cannot operate to divest the person of his right of inheritance to the shebaitship... Under these circumstances, the Defendant Respondent No. 1, Sukumar Ghose, has the right to remain the shebait though he must have the duties connected with the preparation of the worship and the actual worship performed by a competent brahmin, or in such other way, as is done in the family, according to the prevailing custom of the family, unless, of course, he is to incur later on a liability to be removed for misfeasance or misconduct. No such case has been made out up to the present stage for his removal from the shebaitship or for the injunction asked for. Merely because he is a member of Arya Samaj and holds views against all kinds of Idol worship, he cannot be removed in the present case. The Subordinate Judge, therefore, rightly dismissed the suit of the Plaintiffs reversing the decree of the Munsif. The decree of the Subordinate Judge being right is upheld and this appeal is dismissed. Each party will bear its own costs in this Court. Blank, J. I agree.