JUDGMENT : S.K. Dhaon, J. This is a Defendant's second appeal. The lower appellate court has maintained the judgment and decree dated 21st May, 1971, passed by the Munsif. 2. On 26th September, 1947, Dwarka Sahu and his wife Smt. Sahodra executed a deed of endowment (Waqfnama). In it, the relevant recitals are these The doners had the idols of Ram Lakshman Janki and Hanumanji in house No. K 57/187 situated in Mohalla Nawapura in the town of Varanasi and they performed the Sevapuja etc. of the idols according to the Hindu religion. They dedicated the said house to Shri Thakur Ram Lokshman Jankiji and had handed over possession of the same to Shri Thakurji. They had dispossessed themselves from the house and from the date of execution of the deed the ownership of the house vested in Shri Thakurji. So long as the donor No. 1 (the husband) remains alive, he will continue to perform the Seva-puja and Ragbhog etc. and after his demise his wife Smt. Sahodra will perform the Seva puja and Ragbhog etc and will also receive the Prashad Sairvasri Shankar Sahu. Mahadeo Sahu and Shiv Surat Halwai, as trustees. will look after the performance of Sewa-puja etc. by the lady and also the repair of the house and the temple of Thakurji Maharaj. The trustees will meet the short comings, if any. In the event of the death of the wife, the trustees will acquire the right to perform the Seva puja etc. through the agency of a Pujari in the same manner and style in which the donors were performing the same. After the death of the donors it will be the duty of the trustees to get the repairs etc. done. So long as the donors arc alive, the management will be done through them. After their demise the burden will fall on the trustees. 3. On 29th October, 1958, Dwarka Sahu executed a supplementary deed -(Waqfnama) whereby he cancelled the appointment of Shaukar Sahu, Mahadeo Sahu and Shiv Murat Halwai as trustees. In this document it is also recited that the wife of Dwarka Sahu had died. On 16th Feburary, 1960 Dwarka Sahu executed a will in favour of Bechan (Defendant-Appellant) whereby the latter was to succeed him as Shebait of the property which was the subject matter of the deed of endowment dated 26th September, 1947. In this document it is also recited that the wife of Dwarka Sahu had died. On 16th Feburary, 1960 Dwarka Sahu executed a will in favour of Bechan (Defendant-Appellant) whereby the latter was to succeed him as Shebait of the property which was the subject matter of the deed of endowment dated 26th September, 1947. On 19th June 1965, Dwarka Sahu died. 4. Plaintiff No. 2 Shankar Sahu, Plaintiff No. 3 Shiv Murat, and Plaintiffs No. 4 to 7 Rama Shankar, Laxman, Ashok, and Kailash, sons of Mahadeo Sahu applied for mutation as Shebaits. On 11th November, 1965, the Sub-Committee of the Nagar Mahapalika passed an order in their favour and allowed mutation in their names. The appeal preferred by Bechan, the Defendant-Appellant, was allowed on 28th January, 1966. The order passed by the Mutation Committee was set aside and Bechan's name was mutated on the basis of the possession. The second appeal against this order was dismissed on 6th August, 1966. On Ist June, 1967, the Plaintiffs filed a suit, giving rise to this appeal, for a declaration that the Plaintiffs No. 2 to 7 are Shebaits and trustees of Thakur Ram Lakshman Janki and Bechan is not the Shebait or trustee and had no right to manage the properties attached to the idols. They also prayed for a decree for possession over a Kothari in the house aforementioned against Bechan. It was pleaded in the suit that Dwarka Sahu had no right to cancel the appointment of the trustees or to change the line of succession and to appoint Bechan as Shebait. 5. The trial court held that since Dwarka Sahu had not reserved to himself a right of revocation, he could not cancel the appointment of Shebaits nor could be execute the deed dated 29th October, 1959 or the will dated 25th February, 1960 It, therefore, decreed the suit. The lower appellate court has endorsed the view point of the trial court. 6. The crucial question to be decided in this appeal is whether Sarva-sri Shankar Sahu, Mahadeo Sahu and Shiv Murat were appointed as Shebaits by the deed dated 26th September, 1947. I have already extracted the relevant portions from the deed. It is trite law that the Hindu idol is a juristic person in whom the dedicated property vests. An idol is a juristic entity. I have already extracted the relevant portions from the deed. It is trite law that the Hindu idol is a juristic person in whom the dedicated property vests. An idol is a juristic entity. It has a juridical status with the power of suing and being sued. 7. The religious endowment is known as Debutter, and which arises on dedication or gift of a property to an idol. 'It is in an ideal sense that the dedicated property vests in an idol", The possession and. management of it must be entrusted to some person as Shebait or Manager. The Judicial Committee in Prosonna Kumari Debya v. Golab Chand Baboo 2 IA 145 held: That the person so entrusted must of necessity be empowered to do whatever may be required for the service of the idol and for the benefit and preservation of its property, at least to as great a degreed as the manager of an infant heir. If this were not so, the estate of the idol might be destroyed or wasted, and its worship discontinued for want of necessary funds to preserve and maintain them. As observed by the celebrated author, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bijan Kumar Mukherjee, as he then was, in Tagore Law Lectures at page 197 : "The human ministrant of the deity who is its manager and legal representative is known by the name of Shebait in Bengal and northern India He is the person entitled to speak on behalf of the deity on earth and holds authority to deal with all its temporal affairs. As regards the temple property the manager is in the position of a trustee, but as regards the service of the temple and the duties that appertain to it he is rather in the position of the holder of an office or dignity." 8. In Ramanathan Chetti v. Murugappa Chetti 33 IA 139 at page 144, the Judicial Committee held that the manager of the temple is by virtue of his office the administrator of the property attached to it. As regards the property, the manager is in the position of a trustee. But as regards the service of the temple and the duties that appertain to it, he is rather in the position of the holder of an office or dignity. 9. As regards the property, the manager is in the position of a trustee. But as regards the service of the temple and the duties that appertain to it, he is rather in the position of the holder of an office or dignity. 9. In Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumnakumar Mullick, the Judicial Committee emphasised that the interests of a Hindu idol are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who is in law its manager with all the powers which would, in such circumstances, on analogy, be given to the manager of an infant heir Their Lordships quoted with approval a passage from the judgment of Mukerji, J in Krishna Kamini Dasi and Another Vs. Nil Madhab Saha and Others, AIR 1923 Cal 66, which runs: We need not describe here in detail the normal type of continued worship consecrated image the sweeping of the temple, the process of smeering, the removal of the previous day's offerings, of flowers, the presentation of fresh flowers, the respectful oblation of rights with flowers and water, and other like practices. It is sufficient to state that the deity is, in short, conceived as a living being and is treated in the same way as the master of the house would be treated by his humble servant. The daily routine of life is gone through with minute accuracy, the vivified image is regaled with the necessaries and luxuries of life in due succession, even to the changing of clothes, the opening of cooked and uncooked food, and the retirement to rest. Their Lordships thereafter observed: The person founding a deity and becoming responsible for these duties is de facto and in common parlence called Shebait. Their Lordship thereafter observed that the duties of piety from the time of consecration of the idol and duties to some thing existing which, though symolized in the Divinity, has in the eye of law a status as a separate person. The position and the rights must, in order to work this out, both in regard to its preservation, its maintenance and the service to be performed, be in the charge of a human being Accordingly he is the Shebait, custodian of the idol and manager of its estate. 10. The position and the rights must, in order to work this out, both in regard to its preservation, its maintenance and the service to be performed, be in the charge of a human being Accordingly he is the Shebait, custodian of the idol and manager of its estate. 10. I may now refer to the relevant terms of the first deed and read it again in the light of the law referred to above. It is clear that Dwarka Sahu in his life time was the Shebait as he took the responsibility not only to worship the idol, look after it but also to manage the properties dedicated to it (the idol). He reserved this right exclusively to himself till his death. Thereafter the donors specifically conferred the right of worship, namely, the performance of Sewa-puja and the right to receive Prashad as also the right of management in the lady, the wife. This was to continue till her demise The trustees had been nominated merely to assist her and to supervise the performance of Seva-puja etc. of (he idol and also to supervise the management. The trustees, therefore, were completely kept out of the worship of the idol. They had nothing to do with the performance of the Seva-puja of the idol. Therefore, they may have become the trustees for the purpose of the management of the properties of the idol but that right by itself did not make them "holder of an office or dignity." The other feature of the deed is that the trustees were given the right to get the Seva-puja performed through the agency of a Pujari only after the demise of the lady. I tray repeat that the deed did not contemplate that the wife will predecease the husband Therefore, there can be no difficulty in taking the view that the deed did not in presenti confer any right upon the trustees to have anything to do with the worship of the idol and the performance of its Seva-puja and the offering of Rag-bhog etc. to it. 11. to it. 11. Income of the Debutter property would include the offerings which are given to the deity by the worshippers Shebait has a right to receive such off rings The deed did not confer any tight upon the trustees to receive any offerings In fact, it was specific that the lady will exclusively enjoy the offerings and it was also implicit that daring his life time the husband will have exclusive right to the offerings at any rate, to the exclusion of the trustees. From a conspectus of the relevant law referred to above and the relevant terms of the deed, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the donors, while executing the first deed, did not appoint the trustees as Shebaits. The lower appellate court has extracted some quotations from the words of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mnkherjea at page 210. The learned author posted the question : "Once the appointment is made and the line of devolution laid down is it competent for the founder to revoke it afterwards"?. Thereafter the answer is in the negative. But the million dollar question in this case is as to whether under the first deed the trustees were appointed as Shebaits or not I have already answered that question in the negative. The learned author concludes at page 211 : "It would be clear from what has been said above, that it is only the founder who can appoint Shebaits and lay down the line of devolution of shebaitship, and once he has made the appointment, he cannot alter or revoke the same, in the absence of a reservation of power to that effect in the deed of dedication." (Underlining by me). I have already held that the founders did not make the appointment of the trustees as Shebaits. 12. The appeal succeeds and is followed. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside and the suit is dismissed with costs throughout.