JUDGMENT : N.N. Mithal, J. In this second appeal by the Defendant No. 1, the only points urged before me are that the property in dispute did not belong to the temple and that the Plaintiff had no right to institute the suit as trustee thereof since he had failed that he had been ever appointed as trustee thereof. 2. ID short the suit of the Plaintiff was for a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant from using the disputed stair case and the land appurtenant thereto. The Plaintiff alleged that the temple of Sri Laxmi Narain Ji Mahraj as family temple had been established by his fore-fathers in the village in question and Defendant No. 2 as the eldest member of the family was managing the same and the other family members were also co-trustees. Extensive properties were endowed in favour of the idol including the property shown as western gate of mandi of Moblaganj which had a stair case towards north as well as towards south of it. On both the sides of that gate, there were rows of shops and the Defendants' shop is situated just the next to the stair case to its north. According to the Plaintiff, this stair case belonged to the temple and the Defendant had no right of either using it for going to the top of his shop or to use the land in front of the flight of stairs towards its east. 3. The Defendant contested the suit and he claimed that the stair case was always in his user and he had a latrine over the roof of the shop which had no other passage except the aforesaid stair case. It is also contended that the Plaintiff bad no right to sue and in any case Defendant had easementary right of using the stair case. 4. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the property belong to the temple and for this they have mostly relied upon the own written statement filed by the Defendant in an earlier litigation with another person and his statement in the court in that suit wherein he had admitted that the property belongs to the temple. 4. Both the courts below have come to the conclusion that the property belong to the temple and for this they have mostly relied upon the own written statement filed by the Defendant in an earlier litigation with another person and his statement in the court in that suit wherein he had admitted that the property belongs to the temple. A faint effort was made before me also to suggest that this suit was not binding on the Defendant as it had been properly explained by the Appellant in his statement in the court below inasmuch as the statement was given at the instance of the Plaintiff himself who was his Pairokar in the earlier litigation. This part of the story has rightly not been believed by the courts below and I also can not agree with this submission. In that earlier litigation, there was no dispute about his stair case or the property belonging to the temple and as such there was no occasion for the Plaintiff to have prevailed upon the Defendant to make any such statement. 5. The trial court has recorded a finding that there is no trust deed as such the Plaintiff could not be the trustee of the temple but being a family temple and the Plaintiff being one of the members of the said family, it was held that be was entitled to institute the suit in order to prevent any damage being caused to the property belonging to the idol. Since the Plaintiff had impleaded Laxmi Narain the Manager of the temple, as Defendant and had alleged that he was not taking interest in the protection of idols property, it was held that the Plaintiff had a right to sue. The same view was upheld by the lower appellate court. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the right to bring a suit on behalf of the deity or in respect of property attached to the temple vests only in the Shebait and where there are more than one Shebait of a particular endowment, then all of them must join in bringing the suit. There can not be any dispute about the legal position that a Shebait is entitled to bring a suit on behalf of the deity and in respect of property belonging to it. There can not be any dispute about the legal position that a Shebait is entitled to bring a suit on behalf of the deity and in respect of property belonging to it. An idol though a juristic person, by its very nature can not act by itself and there must be some human agency who has to work for the protection of its interest. The Manager of the endowment or Shebait is normally the proper person recognised under law to uphold the rights of the idol and is under obligation to protect them. However, in a case where the Shebait fails in his duty to do so, and the property belonging to the idol is left unprotected, it is in such cases that courts have consistently held that even a worshipper who is Interested In worship of idol would be entitled to maintain the suit to protect the properties belonging to the idol. However, he can not claim any personal interest in the same. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn my attention to the case Vikrama Das Mahant Vs. Daulat Ram Asthana and Others, IR 1956 SC 382 but that case really does not help the Appellant at all. It was held there: The ordinary rule that persons without title and who are mere intermeddlers can not sue as of right is clear. But where different trusts are concerned, the courts have a duty to see that their interests and the interests of those for whose benefit they exist are safeguarded. Therefore courts must possess the power to sustain proper proceedings by them in appropriate cases and grant relief in the interests of land for the express benefit of the trust, imposing such conditions as may be culled for. 7. In Iswar Radha Kanta Jew v. Gopi Nath Das AIR 1960 SG 741 the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court had this to say en this question: According to Hindu Law, the Shebait represents (he deity and he alone is competent to institute a suit in the name of the deity. In exceptional circumstances, however, where the Shebait does not. or by his own act deprives himself of the power of representing the city a third party is competent to institute a suit in the name of the deity to protect the debutter property. In exceptional circumstances, however, where the Shebait does not. or by his own act deprives himself of the power of representing the city a third party is competent to institute a suit in the name of the deity to protect the debutter property. A worshipper or a member of the family has no doubt his own right to institute a suit to protect his right to worship and for that purpose to protect the debutter property. That is, however, a suit by the member of the family or worshipper in his personal capacity and not a suit by the deity. The deity has also a right of its own to have a suit instituted by a next friend. The person entitled to act as next friend is not limited to the members of the family or to worshipper. Anybody can act as such next friend, but the law requires, that any body other than Shebait instituting a suit in the name of the deity must tie appointed as such by an order of the Court. The decree obtained in a suit not validly instituted is void and binding on the deity. 8. In view of the above legal position, it is quite apparent that even as a member of the family, the Plaintiff, in his own right, was entitled to institute the suit for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of the property belonging to the deity particularly when the person who was defacto manager of the idol's property did not take any active interest in protecting the same. The Plaintiff has not claimed any relief for his own benefit and the only relief sought is for and in favour of the deity and to protect its property. In the circumstances, I can not find any fault in what the courts below have decided. 9. It was also faintly argued that there was no deed of endowment in favour of the temple nor such an endowment could be granted without a registered instrument since it involved transfer of ownership. Under the Hindu Law, a dedication can be made by indicating in clear, unreserved and unconditional expression of the dedicator of his decision to impart his wish in the property in favour of the idol to whom the dedication was intended. Under the Hindu Law, a dedication can be made by indicating in clear, unreserved and unconditional expression of the dedicator of his decision to impart his wish in the property in favour of the idol to whom the dedication was intended. This is known as 'Utsarga' or 'Samarpan' by which the founder renounces his ownership followed by some Sankalp or formulary resolve to indicate the purpose for which the renunciation was made. From a long series of decided cases it would be found that to constitute a valid dedication by a Hindu for religious and charitable purpose, document in writing much less a registered instrument is not essential. All that is necessary is that the intention to dedicate must be clear and the property which is dedicated must be certain and this can be inferred from the subsequent conduct of the dedicator and his heirs etc. as also held in R. Venuggopala Reddiar v. Krisfmswamy Reddiar (?) and Krishna Singh v. Mathura (?) that except where an endowment was created under a will, no writing was necessary but the will must be proved in accordance with law applicable thereto. From the decided cases, it can be inferred that the only requirement of a valid endowment is that there should be a declaration of a binding nature endowing certain property and there should be a renunciation by the settler of his ownership and the dedication should be for a valid object recognised by Hindu Law. 10. In the present case, the properties had admittedly been endowed a long time back and a temple was actually constructed, an idol was installed herein and certain properties had been endowed for maintenance of the temple from the income derived therefrom. From this the conclusion is irresistible that a valid endowment had been created and the object of the said endowment was still being carried on. In the circumstances, nothing more was required to be established. The Plaintiff was, therefore, entitled to file the suit as has been concurrently held by the two courts below. 11. I thus find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed with costs.