B. N. MAITRA, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff have alleged that the disputed property belonged to one Baikunthanath Kundu. By a registered deed of arpannama dated 3-11-1915 he dedicated all his properties including the land in suit to the deity Sri Sri Radhagobinda Jew Thakur and that is an absolute debuttar. Ultimately his daughter-in- law, Haripriya Dassi, became shebait of the deity and possessed the property. By a registered kobala dated 9-8-1956 she sold a portion of the debuttar property, that is the suit land, to the plaintiffs for legal necessity. But in the R. S. Khatian it is erroneously recorded that the land had vested in the State. They were threatened with dispossession by the Government Tahasildar. Hence the suit for permanent injunction on declaration of ht plaintiffs' title to the disputed land and for a further declaration that the entry in the R. S. Khatian is incorrect. ( 2 ) THE defence of the State, defendant no. 1, is that the suit land was not retained by submitting a return in the B Form and it vested in the State. There was no legal necessity. Hence the plaintiffs acquired no title to the suit land. ( 3 ) THE learned Munsif accepted the denfence version and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs filed an appeal and lost the same. Hence this appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that the suit land forms part of an absolute debuttar property. In view of the provisions of section 6 (i) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 there is no ceiling limit regarding the retention of an absolute debuttar property. So, no question of retention or of vesting of the same in the State or of filing a return in the B Form does arise. The transfer was made of r legal necessity and hence the plaintiffs' title must be declared. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has contended that the final court of fact has stated that there was no legal necessity for such transfer. That finding cannot be challenged in the second appeal. The cases in A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 49 Sree Meenakhi Mills v. I. T. C. at page 55 and in 22 C. W. N. 49, to have been referred to support this contention. That finding cannot be challenged in the second appeal. The cases in A. I. R. 1957 S. C. 49 Sree Meenakhi Mills v. I. T. C. at page 55 and in 22 C. W. N. 49, to have been referred to support this contention. It has been stated that the entry in the record-of-rights regarding vesting must be found to be correct. ( 6 ) THE final court of fact has stated that there was no legal necessity. That there was no legal necessity. That finding cannot be challenged in second appeal. The main question is what is that effect of transfer of a portion of the absolute debuttar property by the shebait when there was no legal necessity. It is common ground that the property was dedicated to the deity. Law is that if the whole of the absolute debuttar property is transferred by the shebait then the transfer is absolutely void. But if only a portion of the absolute debuttar property is transferred by the shebait without legal necessity, the transfer is not void. Such transfer is only viodable and is valid during the life time or tenure of the office of the alienating manager. Consequently the transferee's position becomes adverse tot eh endowment only when the alienating shebait ceases to be the manager on account of death, retirement or otherwise. This view was taken by the Judicial Committee in the cases in 26 C. W. N. 537 P. C. Vidyabharati-vs-Baluswami, 37 C. W. N. 54 P. C. , Mohant Rqamcharam Das-vs-Naurangilal. In the former case a portion of the debuttar property was transferred without legal necessity. These decisions were followed by a Bench of our High Court, where Mr. Justice Bijan Kumar Mukherjee speaking for the Bench accepted this proposition, vide the case of Hemanta Kumari v. Sree Sree Sridhar in 50 C. W. N. 629 at pages 631 and 632. This Bench decision was subsequently followed by this Court in A. I. R. 1952 Cal. 387, Iswar Kalimata v. Manager, Begusarai. ( 7 ) IT has already been indicated that the entire absolute debuttar property was not transferred. The transfer was not made by her in her personal capacity, but by her as the shebait of the deity. This Bench decision was subsequently followed by this Court in A. I. R. 1952 Cal. 387, Iswar Kalimata v. Manager, Begusarai. ( 7 ) IT has already been indicated that the entire absolute debuttar property was not transferred. The transfer was not made by her in her personal capacity, but by her as the shebait of the deity. Consequently it must be held that the transfer is not altogether void and the same is valid during the life time or the tenure of office of Haripriya Dassi, who is alienating shebait, and the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of title according to law. ( 8 ) SINCE it is an absolute debuttar property, no question of vesting of the property in the State or of submitting a return in the B Form arises and consequently the entry in the record-of-rights about its vesting is erroneous. ( 9 ) THE appeal be allowed. The judgment and decree appealed against be hereby set aside. The plaintiffs' title to the disputed land be hereby during the life time or tenure of office of the shebait, Haripriya Dassi. The entry in the R. S. Khatian about vesting is erroneous. The State, defendant no. 1, be permanently restrained form interfering with the plaintiffs' possession in the suit land till the life time or tenure of office of Haripriya Dassi as shebait of the absolute debuttar property belonging to the deity, Sri Sri Sri Radhagobinda Jiew Thakur. The parties will bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed - Parties will bear their own costs throughout.