JUDGMENT 1. In all these writ petitions following important common questions of law are involved and as such, on the law points, these writ petitions are decided by a common judgment:- 1. Whether under section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 the word 'person' should be limited to the living persons only ? 2. Whether the deity/idol can be considered as a person' within the purview of Section-46 ? 3. Whether the deity/idol can be considered as a minor within the purview of the Section 46 of the Act of 1955 ? 4. Whether the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act can be applied in the cases of deity and Shebiat or Pujari can be treated as guardian of the deity, and, if so, to what extent ? 5. What will be the effect of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 in cases of immovable property, particularly, agricultural land owned by the deity/idol ? 2. It is the settled law that a Trust in the sense in which the expression is used, is unknown in the Hindu system pure and simple. Under the Hindu Law the image of a deity of the Hindu Panth or Sect is, as has been amply in a juristic entity vested with the capacity of receiving gifts and holding property. When the gift is directly to a deity/idol the Shabiat or Pujari or any human agency in whatever name it is called is only the manager and custodian of the property of the idol or the institution. It is a well settled law that ordinarily, Hindu idol or deity is considered as a juristic person, 3. The word "person" is a word of variable import. The word "person" has not got a fixed connotation, meaning in all cases and it has to be applied looking to the subject and context of the law' under which it has to be applied and the purpose for which the law has been enacted. Sometimes, the definition of the word "person" may be limited only to the living person and juristic person may be included if the subject matter or the context of the law so requires. Under the Rajasthan Tenancy Law neither the word "person" nor the word "minor" has been defined. Under sub-section 42 of Section-3 of the General Clauses Act the word "person" has been defined. Under the Rajasthan Tenancy Law neither the word "person" nor the word "minor" has been defined. Under sub-section 42 of Section-3 of the General Clauses Act the word "person" has been defined. According to this definition the term "person" shall include any Company or association or body of individuals or incorporated or not. The expression "person" includes not only a natural person but also a juristic person, such as a deity or a Gurdwara. The Bombay High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. M/s Syndicate Transport Company, AIR 1964 Bombay 195 has held that despite the generality of the definition of a "person" given in Section 11 of the Penal Code, a corporate body or a company shall not be indictable tor offences which can be committed only by a human individual or for offences which must be punished with imprisonment. For that limited purpose Bombay High Court restricted the definition of the word "person" only to the living person. The Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of Thakurdwara Perumal of Amritsar v. Isardas and others AIR 1978 Lahore 375 , held that an idol is a juridical person and similarly a Malt but to extend this doctrine to include the building in which the idol is deposited as in some way itself becoming a religious institution is a most unwarranted extension of this doctrine and would result in two juridical persons co-existing in the same institution. 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jogender Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax ( AIR 1969 SC 1089 ) , held that Hindu deity falls within the meaning of the word 'individual' and can be treated as an unit of assessment under that section. The Hindu Law, like the Roman Law and those derived from it, recognises not only incorporate bodies with rights of property vested in the corporation apart from its individual members but also juridical persons called foundations. A Hindu who wishes to establish a religious or charitable institution may according to his law express his purpose and endow it and the ruler will give effect to the bounty or at least protect it and at any rate as is consistent with his own Dharma or conception of morality. It is a gift in the ordinary course and trust is not required for the purpose. It is a gift in the ordinary course and trust is not required for the purpose. The property gifted can be held by the deity as a owner and the Shebait or the Pujari acts as a Manager and spends money for the welfare of the deity. It is consistent with the grants having been made to the juridical person symbolised or personified in the idol. 5. In Encyclopaedia Britannica the word Hinduism' has been defined. In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to rever the divine in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant, leaving others-including both Hindus and non-Hindus-whatever creed and worship practices suit them best. A Hindu may embrace a non-Hindu religion without ceasing to be a Hindu, and since the Hindu is disposed to think synthetically and to regard other forms of worship, gods, and divergent doctrines as inadequate rather than wrong or objectionable, he tends to believe that the highest divine powers complement each other for the well being of the world and mankind." Thus, the Hindu doctrine of religion recognises 'Astik' as well as 'Nastik' forms which are opposite to each other, but meeting at a common point of faith and belief. Idol worship or worship of a deity is the one part or philosophy of Hindu thought and Hindu worship and Hindu recognises that for the one's own salvation it is necessary to worship the deity and to offer whatever he has earned to the deity for the welfare of the deity which includes the welfare of the Society. 6. The Constitution of India protects the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Article 25 provides that subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. 7. In this back-ground we will have to interpret the word "person" as used in Section-46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Ordinarily, idol/deity is considered as a juristic person and to narrow down the meaning may amount to interference in the thinking of believers of deity and idols of Hindu. 7. In this back-ground we will have to interpret the word "person" as used in Section-46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Ordinarily, idol/deity is considered as a juristic person and to narrow down the meaning may amount to interference in the thinking of believers of deity and idols of Hindu. It will not be out of place here to mention that in many temples from morning to evening, people have the Darshan of the deity in different forms just like a living person. Bal Darshan, Raj Bhog etc. and they treat idol as a person. A question may arise about the rights of the tenants. For this reason we ate of the view that idol should be considered as a juristic person and the word 'person' as used in Section-46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act includes the 'deity' idol' and the 'idol has a right to hold the property including the agricultural land. 8. The second question which arises for our consideration is whether the idol can be considered as a minor in perpetuity. The word 'minor' has not been defined in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, Section-defines 'minor' as a person who has not completed the age of 18 years. Under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, Chapter-IIIB (Old Ceiling Law), the ceiling area was fixed for the family and not for a person. Under the same Act the family was defined as constituted by the husband, wife and dependent children. However, under the new ceiling law i.e. the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, Section 2(h) defines 'minor' as under:- "Minor" means a person who has not completed the age of 18 years". Thus, there is a departure from the old ceiling law and under the new Ceiling Law the ceiling area has been prescribed not only for the family, but, for a person or a family entitled to hold anywhere throughout the State. It will not be out of place here to mention that there are series of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the deity or idol should ordinarily be considered as minor in perpetuity. It will not be out of place here to mention that there are series of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the deity or idol should ordinarily be considered as minor in perpetuity. Hindu idol is, according to long established authorities, founded upon the religious customs of the Hindu and the recognisation thereof by the Court of law a juristic entity It has a judicial status with the power of suing and being sued. Its interests are attended to by a person who is having a deity in his charge and who is in law its Manager or Shebait with all the powers which would, in such circumstances, on an analogy, be given to the manager of an estate of inphant (sic infant) heir. 9. In the case of Bishwanath and another V. Shri Thakur Radha Ballabbji and others ( AIR 1967 S.C. 1044 ) , their lord-hips of the Supreme Court held, when such an alienation has been effected by the Shebait acting adversely to the interests of the idol even a worshipper can file the suit, the reason being that the idol is in the position of a minor and when the person representing it leaves it in a lurch, a person interested in the worship of the idol can certainly be clothed with an ad hoc power of representation to protect its interest. By fiction deity 'idol has ordinarily been treated as 'minor'. The fiction has now re-organised into law which could have its logical inference under Section 46, so as to attract the benefit under section 46 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It will not be out of place here to mention that idol is always to be looked after by its Manager since it is dependent upon others and the means of livelihood of the idol will have to be taken into consideration. While at one place under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act the tenants have been given the acquiring right, title or interest on their land, in the very same statute under section 46 the interest of minor child, son and widow has been protected, in the sense that the minor who does not possess means of livelihood has been exempted and the tenants cannot acquire the khatedari rights of the minor's land. Both the objects are laudable and idol should not be deprived of the advantage. Both the objects are laudable and idol should not be deprived of the advantage. It is relegated to the position of a minor who has to depend upon the management of its Shebait or Manager. Under the Hindu law relating to temples and religious endowments, the deity is conceived as a living being and treated in the same way as master of the house would be treated by his humble servant. Everyone knows that an idol is not only worshipped but is accorded all the facilities of food, clothing, Shringar and is looked after throughout the course of the day by his worshippers. There is a provision for its 'Puja' 'Bhog' and other necessities as are required for living person. The maintenance of the temple in which the idol is installed is also a necessary requirement. 10. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the view that the deity/idol should be treated as a minor in perpetuity and should be treated as living Hindu person for most of the purposes. When the offerings are offered to the deity, the offerings become the property of the deity and not of the temple. Deity owns the offerings and the Pujari or the shebait shall not be the owner of the offerings and the property of the deity. Ordinarily, the essence of the public endowment consists being dedicated to the public. The distinction between a public and private endowment is that in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals and in the latter they are general public or class thereof. Thus, the property is dedicated to the working of family idol, it may become the private endowment,however, the property will belong to and will be owned by the deity. Beneficiaries may be limited. 11. Welfare of the persons is the sovereign function of the State. Deity being a person may be juristic person, may be a person on account of fiction of law, it becomes obligatory on the part of the State to protect the deity and to look after the welfare of the deity. 12. Under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the immovable property of the minor cannot be sold without the permission of the Court. Under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, Clause (2) of Section-4 defines the word 'guardian'. 'Guardian' means a person having the care of a minor or his property or both his person and property. 12. Under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the immovable property of the minor cannot be sold without the permission of the Court. Under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, Clause (2) of Section-4 defines the word 'guardian'. 'Guardian' means a person having the care of a minor or his property or both his person and property. In the same Act the ward has also been defined under clause (3). Ward means a minor for whose person or property or both there is a guardian. The term guardian has been defined to mean a person having a care of a person of a minor or his property or both his person or property. Clause (6) of Section-4 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 contains identical words. Clause (6) says that the term 'guardian' includes natural guardian, testamentary guardian and certificated guardian. In our opinion, the effect of guardian would fall under the definition of guardian, as the words, 'a person having care of' and if a defecto person or if the defacto guardian has care of property (sic person) or property he should be included in the Code and should exercise in the welfare of the child. In the case coming under the Guardian and Wards Act as well as under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the Court should take into consideration the other clauses and should give a wider interpretation to include all kinds of guardians. Section 11 of the Act of 1956 says that after the commencement of this Act no person shall be entitled to dispose of or deal with the properly of a Hindu minor merely on the ground of his or her being de facto guardian of the minor. The term 'de facto guardian' as such, is not mentioned in any of the text, but, its extent has never been denied in Hindu Law. In the case of Shri Malo v. Pundrikashya (AIR 1949 F.C. 218) , it has been held that Hindu Law tried to find a solution out of the two difficult situations. One, when a Hindu child has no legal guardian then there would be none to handle or manage his property in law. In the case of Shri Malo v. Pundrikashya (AIR 1949 F.C. 218) , it has been held that Hindu Law tried to find a solution out of the two difficult situations. One, when a Hindu child has no legal guardian then there would be none to handle or manage his property in law. Thus, when a guardian comes the child would not receive any income from the property and subsequently a person having no title cannot be permitted to intermeddle with the child's estate so as to cause loss to him Hindu law finds a solution by giving a different status to de facto guardian. Shebait or Pujari is the person who is taking care of a minor idol/deity and property of the deity. In such cases Shebait or Pujari becomes a guardian by fiction of its ward (idol). Under Section 27 of the Guardians and Wards Act a guardian of the properly of a ward is bound to deal there with as carefully as a man of ordinary prudence would deal with it if it were his own subject to the other provisions of law. Under Section 29 of the said Act restrictions have been imposed on the guardian that he shall not without the permission of the Court mortgage or charge or transfer by sale, gift or otherwise, any part of the immovable property of his ward. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act provides that the de tacto guardian shall not be entitled to dispose of or deal with the property of Hindu minor merely on the ground of being a de facto guardian of the minor. In Hindu law de facto guardian and de fecto managers have been recognised all along. A de facto guardian is one who is not a legal guardian in the sense that he is either a legal guardian or a testamentary guardian or a court guardian, who being interested in the minor takes charge of the management of the minor's property. Shebait or Pujari takes charge of the management of the minors property. As such, they fall within the purview of the dc facto guardian of the infant minor idol. Even after the coming into force of the Act of 1956 the system of de facto guardianship survives. Shebait or Pujari takes charge of the management of the minors property. As such, they fall within the purview of the dc facto guardian of the infant minor idol. Even after the coming into force of the Act of 1956 the system of de facto guardianship survives. Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act merely lays down that a de facto guardian is not entitled to dispose of or deal with the minor's property. Even before 1956 the de facto guardian was not entitled to dispose of minor's property, if however, he disposes it of for justified purposes it was valid. Now, Section 11 of the Act declares that the de facto guardian cannot alienate the property. The property of the idol/deity is the property for the benefit of the society, for the benefit of the idol, for preservation of the idol and for propagating the philosophy, belief, etc. Thus, the property of the idol needs more cautious control than the property of the ordinary minor. For this reason we are of the view that the idol is a prepetual minor and is governed by the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, to this extent that the property of the minor idol cannot be sold without the consent of the court or in accordance with law provided in the Act of 1956. 13. Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 was enacted to check gross abuses of the public trust and trust funds by scrupulous Trustees. The object of the Public Trust Act, 1959 is highly laudable as the objects of the Public Trust Act were properly and administratively administered. Every person has a fundamental right in our Constitution not merely to entertain such religious belief as may be approved by his judgment of conscience, but to believe his ideas over acts as are enjoined and sanctioned by his religion and further to propagate religious views for the edifications of others. We will have to draw a distinction between the Trust Property and the property of the idol. A Trustee becomes owner of the property and he manages and controls the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries, namely, the followers of the faith. However, in the case of the property owned and possessed by the idol, the provisions of the Trust Act will not apply. A Trustee becomes owner of the property and he manages and controls the property for the benefit of the beneficiaries, namely, the followers of the faith. However, in the case of the property owned and possessed by the idol, the provisions of the Trust Act will not apply. Thus, there is demarcating line that whenever the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act apply the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act will give way to the special provisions enacted for the preservation and control of the Trust property. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 306/78 (Ram Lal v. Board of Revenue and others). Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the fact that the petitioner is a recorded tenant and the land was not a khudkast land. He has invited our attention to Annexure 5, 5A, 5B, Girdawaris. In the Girdawaris it has been mentioned that Ram Lal and Shyam Lal sons of Natthu Ram are the tenants. He has also invited my (sic our) attention to Annexures 6, 7, 8 and 9. Annexure-9 is a mutation entry. We have gone through the judgment of the Revenue Boaid dated 8-4-78 and the Revenue Board has held that the deity of the temple has been entered as a Mafidar. Revenue Board has also held that the position of a deity and the Mafidar is a separate and distinct from its position. Khatedar tenants and resumption of Mafi and grant of annuity do not in any way derogate from its authority to hold land as Khatedar. The respondents have supported the judgment of the court below and have also invited our attention to number of entries. Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 defines under section 2(1) Khudkast land. Khudkast means any land cultivated personally by the Jagirdar and includes any land recorded as khudkast, Sir or Harwai in settlement records or any land allotted to Jagirdar as Khudkast under Chapter-IV. Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 defines under section 2(1) Khudkast land. Khudkast means any land cultivated personally by the Jagirdar and includes any land recorded as khudkast, Sir or Harwai in settlement records or any land allotted to Jagirdar as Khudkast under Chapter-IV. Sub-clause (k) of Section 2 detines land cultivated personally as under:- (k) 'land cultivated personally, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means land cultivated on one's own account ; (i) by one's own labour; or (ii) by the labour of any member of one's family; or (iii) by servants on wages payable in cash or in kind (but not by way of a share in crops) or by hired labour under one's personal supervision or the personal supervision of any member of one's family: Provided that in the case of a person who is a widow or a minor or is subject to any physical or mental disability or is a member of the Armed Forces of the Union, or who being a student of an educational institution recognised by the Government is below the age of twenty five years, land shall be deemed to be cultivated personally even in absence of such personal supervision. 15. Thus, it is clear that either it must be cultivated with one's own labour or the labour of the family member or by servant on wages payable in cash or kind but not by way of share in crops. On the resumption of Jagir the khudkast land remained with the khatedar and the other land vested in the State. Under Section-9 of the Act of 1952, every tenant in a Jagir land who at the commencement of this Act is entered in the revenue as a Khamdar, Pattedar or under any other description implying that the tenant has heritable and full transferable rights in the tenancy shall continue to have such rights and shall be called a Khatedar tenant in respect of such land. 16. Section 18 deals with the maximum area of the khudkast. Section 19 deals with the categories of lands that may be allotted. 17. It will not be out of place here to mention that the land held by the tenant cannot be allotted to Jagirdar. Section 22 deals with the consequences of resumption. 16. Section 18 deals with the maximum area of the khudkast. Section 19 deals with the categories of lands that may be allotted. 17. It will not be out of place here to mention that the land held by the tenant cannot be allotted to Jagirdar. Section 22 deals with the consequences of resumption. The consequence of resumption is that except the khudkast land the right, title and interest of the khatedar in his Jagir lands including the forests, trees, fisheries etc. stand resumed to the Government free from all encumbrances. Under the Zamindari and Bishwedaii Act No. 8 of 1959 also there are similar provisions relating to the khudkast land. Under the Act of 1959, all lands vested in the Government except the khudkast land. It is not necessary for us to go into the provisions of law which were applicable in the erstwhile State of Jaipur 18. In the case of Kalankar Devi v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1970 SC 439 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Hindu idol is a juristic person. It cannot cultivate personally within Explanation I to Section 2 (12) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) (Act 99 of 1958). The explanation No. I provides in the said Act that minor or a person subject to any mental or physical disability shall be deemed to cultivate the land personally if it is cultivated by her or his servant or by Halwal. In the instant case, this case does not apply and even the non-petitioners have not come with a case that the land was cultivated by the servant or through hired labour. There is sufficient material on record to show that it was not a khudkast land, but the land was cultivated by the tenants, which is clear from Annexure-6 and other documents. The finding of the Board of Revenue seems to be perverse on this point and the Board of Revenue has not considered the relevant entries particularly, about the right of tenancy of the petitioner at all. 19. In the result, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 306/78, Ram Lal and another v. Board of Revenue and others , is accepted. The impugned order of the subordinate court dated, 13.11.77 and the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 8.4.78 are hereby set aside. The land shall be treated as khatedari land of the present petitioners. 19. In the result, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 306/78, Ram Lal and another v. Board of Revenue and others , is accepted. The impugned order of the subordinate court dated, 13.11.77 and the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 8.4.78 are hereby set aside. The land shall be treated as khatedari land of the present petitioners. No order as to costs. 20. We have also heard learned counsel for the parties in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 494/82, Mandir Murti Shri Thakur Ji Maharaj v. Board of Revenue and others. As far as the law points are concerned, we have already decided and we hold that the idol is a minor and is governed by the provisions of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Present non-petitioners have been entered as tenants throughout. It is evident from the record produced before this Court as well as before the lower Court that the land was not a khudkast land of the idol and the Mafi has been resumed. We do not find any force in this writ petition and the same is hereby rejected. 21. As far as the writ petition No. 495/82, Mandir Moorti Shri Thakurji Maharaj v. Board of Revenue and others , is concerned, we are also of the view that the petitioner idol was not holding the land as khudkast and the Board was right in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. We do not find only force in this writ petition also and the same is rejected. 22. As far as the Writ Petition No. 952/85, Thakurji Radhaballabh Ji Birajman v. Board of Revenue and others , the land was not held by Thakurji as a khudkast land and the Board was justified in holding that the land has vested in tenant as khatedar. We do not find any force in this petition also and the same is dismissed.No order as to costs.Petition No. 306/78 Accepted/petition Nos. 494 & 495/82 and 952/85, Rejected. *******