JUDGMENT The dispute between the parties is in respect of a house situates in the town of Guna. There was an arbitration agreement between the parties in respect of division of properties. The matter was brought in a Court proceeding before the District Judge of Guna. The matter was also referred to the arbitrator and an order was passed by the trial Court in respect of the questions raised between the parties as to whether the properties were part of impartible estate or they were liable to be partitioned in accordance with law by metes and bounds. A Civil Revision No. 154/87 and Misc. appeal No. 127/87 were preferred before this Court which were decided by common order dated 29.10.1991. In that order, this Court has specifically held that the properties in dispute were not part of impartible estate. Admittedly some idols were installed in a part of the house in question, this Court had specifically held that the entire properties including this house were liable to be partitioned. The only question for determination remains in respect of the rights of shebaitship, which were to be ascertained, recognised and confirmed. This Court had further held in the said judgment that in the same proceedings for partition' of the entire properties, the question of shebaitship be also decided either by the arbitrator or by the Court, when the award is submitted. Following direction was given by this Court -- I direct that the parties be heard and they be allowed to prove their rival claims if so pressed, to the right of shebaitship in respect of the temple in question. When final award is made, partitioning the property in metes and bounds, that decision shall also be rendered and that shall be made a part of the final award as to entitlement to act as a shebait of the temple of the party found in law to be entitled to exercise that right." After this direction, the matter was again placed before the trial Court. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 1st of March, 1995 directed that the matter be placed before the arbitrator for making additional award in respect of the proposal for partition of the properties in dispute. The trial Court, in the impugned order, however, observed that in respect of the idols, any party may forgo its right in favour of the other. The trial Court, in the impugned order, however, observed that in respect of the idols, any party may forgo its right in favour of the other. Learned counsel for the appellant has objection to this observation made by the trial Court. The right of shebaitship has certain incidents under the Hindu Law, and the observations of the trial Court for forgoing right by one party in favour of the other is uncalled for. The right of shebaitship could not be forgone in favour of anybody else in view of the fact that this right had certain incidence to the property as well. Therefore, the entire matter was referred to the arbitration, and the question of right of shebaitship was to be decided afresh by the arbitrator himself. The Trial Court could not make any observation in that respect, making the arbitrator handicapped for deciding the matter on that point. So far as the order of the trial Court, as impugned in this appeal, referring the matter to the arbitrator for giving additional award in respect of the partition is concerned, it is fully justified and the same is confirmed. However, the observation made by the trial Court in the impugned order in para 25 shall not come in the way of the arbitrator in deciding the right of shebaitship in respect of the idols. This question on being decided by the arbitrator, shall form a part of the same award. In view of the direction given above, this appeal is disposed of finally.