JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– Challenging the order dated 21st May, 2001, passed by learned Court of 5th Additional District Judge at Alipore in Misc. Case No. 143/98, the petitioner therein has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, learned Court below dismissed the said Misc. Case on contest and without costs. Said Misc. Case arose out of an application under Sections 36, 37, 59, 60, 71 and 74 of the Indian Trust Act read with Section 14 of the Religious Endowment Act, 1863 filed by the present petitioner claiming himself as 'Tantra Dharak' on behalf of deity "Sri Sri 108, Karunamoyee Kalimata" popularly known as "Lake Kalibari". 2. In this application, prayer was made for declaration of the Debottar property of Sri Sri Kalimata as 'public trust' and thereby to pass necessary order of permanent injunction against the opposite parties from managing the affairs of deity, and for necessary scheme for management of said Debottar property as well as appointment of a receiver. 3. In the application, it was alleged that one Sri Haripada Chakraborty who was termed as 'Gurudev' by the petitioner, installed an idol of kalimata in a thatched room at 107/1, Southern Avenue which subsequently acquired fame in the locality in question attracting many large numbers of devotees of offer their Pujas and offerings. The clay idol was replaced by permanent idol made of reinforced concrete. The temple was converted to a pucca structure. Other rooms namely Office of the temple, bedroom for Gurudev and room for consultation with disciples and devotees, also were constructed. 4. It is contended further that a building was constructed at 162/D/8, Lake Gardens wherein tenants were inducted and the money as received as rental also became the asset of the said deity. Said Gurudev executed a trust deed on 2nd July, 1974 which was cancelled illegally on 13th September, 1974. Thereafter a will was executed on 11th December, 1985 wherein opposite party was as executor and other two nephews of Gurudev namely Debasis @ Sadhan and Pronoy were appointed as sebaits. Subsequently executed a Codicil illegally on 14th June, 1987 by virtue of which opposite party Netai Chandra Bose is trying to establish himself as sebait, by illegal payments of money from the Debottor property of the said purpose of transfer of sebaitship. Subsequently executed a Codicil illegally on 14th June, 1987 by virtue of which opposite party Netai Chandra Bose is trying to establish himself as sebait, by illegal payments of money from the Debottor property of the said purpose of transfer of sebaitship. It is alleged that said Netai Chandra Bose is mismanaging the Debottor properties in collusion with others, by handling the cash for personal gain, which caused injury to the frame of the deity itself in the mind of the devotees. 5. The applicant further contended that since the Debottor property is a public trust as per recital executed by the Settlor Haripada Chakraborty, necessary declaration would be passed restraining the opposite parties from causing any disturbance in the Seba Puja by the applicant and from causing any illegal Act. Opposite party in the said application Netai Chandra Bose, contested the Misc. Case by filling written objection upon taking the points namely the maintainability of the application in view of clear embargo under the Indian Trust Act and on principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. It was categorically contended that purported Trust Deed never was acted upon and/or given effect to. The applicant not being the next friend of the deity had no locus standi to file the application. It was further asserted that in terms of the will and the codicil executed by Haripada Chakraborty, said Gurudev, as was duly probated by the competent Court of law, the prayer for declaration was directly his by law of perpetuity. It is contended that the applicant and his brother Haradhan were in league to grab the Pranamis, Dakshinas and the ornaments as were offered to the deity. He was discharged from the priesthood, as he was considered incompetent. It is vehemently contended in the opposition therein before the learned Court below that Trust Deed dated 2nd July, 1974 was cancelled by the settlor himself on 13th September, 1974 and all the allegations as made in the application were baseless and vague. Learned Court below considering the rival contentions of the parties framed the following points for decision:–– "After hearing the learned Advocates for both sides and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the following points will be necessary to decide. (I) Whether case is maintainable in its present form? Learned Court below considering the rival contentions of the parties framed the following points for decision:–– "After hearing the learned Advocates for both sides and regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I think the following points will be necessary to decide. (I) Whether case is maintainable in its present form? (II) Whether the Trust Deed dated 2.7.74 was at all acted upon or whether the deed of Revocation by the author himself has any validity in the eye of law? (III) Whether the Will dated 11.12.85 and subsequent Codicil thereto executed by Haripada Chakraborty duly probated has overriding effect over the Trust Deed dated 2.7.74? (IV) Whether the Lake Kali Bari situated at 107/1, Southern Avenue and the premises at 162/D/B, Lake Gardens and other moveable assets of the Deity are Public Religious endowment and thereby Public Trust? (V) Whether the appoint of the O.P.-Sebait for overall supervision and management of the temple and its property is illegal? (VI) Whether there is necessity to frame Rules for the overall management of the Deity and its property? (VII) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the prayer as embodied in the petition? 6. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Court below decided all the points against the applicant therein. So far as the Point No.1, it has been decided that the applicant was not competent to file such application. It is held by the learned Court below that even if for arguments it is accepted that Trust Deed as was executed, by the said Gurudev in the year 1974, is still valid, still then the applicant Ramnarayan had no right or authority to file the application in view of his admission in evidence that one of the trustee named in the Trust Deed dated 2nd July, 1974 who is still alive was the most competent person to file any application under provisions of the Indian Trust Act. Said trustee did not file any suit and did not join in the application filed by the petitioner, hence, the application was not maintainable. Said trustee did not file any suit and did not join in the application filed by the petitioner, hence, the application was not maintainable. Learned Court below considered the evidence of O.P.W.2 namely "that after July, 1974 when the Gurudev came to know that his power and authority were taken away by some third party by virtue of said purported Trust Deed on exercising chicanery and jugglery of words by the words as included in the said Deed, he decided to disown it and accordingly directed to throw the same in a waste paper box. Thereafter, as per advice of the lawyer, he executed a Deed of cancellation of said Trust Deed on 13th September, 1974." It was held by the Court below that during the life time of Gurudev till 22nd June, 1986 none of the trustees then alive came forward to take any action or took charge of the property. 7. It is held by the learned Court below on careful consideration of the evidence that the surviving trustee Asish Sengupta admittedly did not file the application challenging the Deed of cancellation dated 13th September, 1974 by which the Trust Deed was cancelled. That the opposite party must be represented by a next friend and the applicant was not at all a next friend as he claimed himself 'Tantradharak". It is observed by learned Court below that applicant did not challenge the appointment of Sebait or executor in terms of the will and codicil. The applicant did not pray for permission to represent the deity as per law, as a next friend, hence, the applicant had no locus standi to file the application. 8. Regarding Point Nos. II, III, IV, V and VII the same was decided against the applicant that is the present petitioner herein by considering the points analogously. Learned Court below considered the argument as was advanced that the Trust Deed could not be changed, modified and/or revoked and testator of the will had no right to execute the will and codicil. Learned Court below also considered the point as urged namely that in view of embargo under Section 78 of the Indian Trust Act, revocation of Trust Deed in absence of specific stipulation in the Deed was completely barred. Learned Court below also considered the point as urged namely that in view of embargo under Section 78 of the Indian Trust Act, revocation of Trust Deed in absence of specific stipulation in the Deed was completely barred. Considering the evidence on record, learned Court below held that Trust Deed was for a very short period namely for two months and same was never acted upon, and Section 78 of the Trust Act had no applicability. It is held that if the spirit of the Trust Deed as in dispute was contrary to the mindset of the settlor and from the material-on-evidence if it is proved that he left no stone unturned to do away with the same with due promptness, the hyper technicality point that there was no clause reserving the right of revocation in the Trust Deed, was immaterial. 9. It is further held that the Trust Deed was not at all enforced and none have challenged the Deed of cancellation dated 13th September, 1974. It is held that when the trustees themselves tacitly accepted the Deed of cancellation then it could be safely presumed that the cancellation of the Deed of Trust during their lifetime was accepted. It is further held that the drafter of the said Trust Deed was a man of strong legal sense in view of the words and the tenor of the language as used in Trust Deed, but despite full knowledge of the Deed of Cancellation, no action was taken by anyone nor the same was challenged within long 24 years since 1974 which was the date of cancellation of Trust Deed till the date of filling of the application that is the year 1998. It is observed that 'Tantradharak' of the temple who all along was there suddenly woke up from his slumber and filed this application contending that gross injustice was caused due to cancellation of the Deed of Trust to the devotees. 10. Learned Court considered the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and of the O.P.W.2 who contended that till his death, said Gurudev Sri Chakraborty used to provide direction for proper maintenance and management of the property of the deity upon having full control and supervision for the Seba Puja of deity. 10. Learned Court considered the evidence of P.W.1, 2 and of the O.P.W.2 who contended that till his death, said Gurudev Sri Chakraborty used to provide direction for proper maintenance and management of the property of the deity upon having full control and supervision for the Seba Puja of deity. Considering this, the Court below held that taking into account of the conduct of Haripada Chakraborty as well as the behaviours of huge number of disciples and devotees attending the Lake Kali Bari, it is proved that Trust Deed was given a go-bye. It is further held that Haripada Chakraborty never divested himself overall power, control and supervision of the temple. It is held by the learned Court below that the Lake Kali Bari is not a public Debottor property and the deity is not a public deity. It has been held that the present petitioner Ramnarayan filed the case only to regain his power as a priest and since the deity is not a public deity and the property is not public Debottor, there was no cause of action to file this application upon reaffirming that the applicant had no locus standi to challenge. Reliance was placed by the learned Court below on several judgments of different Courts. Learned Court below considered the will and codicil executed by Sri Chakraborty and held that probate was granted by competent Court of law which is Exhibit-A and since grant of probate, all devotees and disciples accepted the opposite party as sebait-cum-executor who was maintaining, controlling and supervising the performance of Seba puja and all matters of the deity. 11. Learned Court below considered the fact that long after the grant of probate, however, two nephews of Sri Chakraborty along with one imposter unsuccessfully made an attempt to revoke the probate but the same was dismissed on 23rd February, 2001 by a competent Court of law. Learned Court below further considered the factual matrix namely the unsuccessful attempt to appoint a Receiver in Title Suit No. 12/98 as was decided by the Court of learned Munsif, 3rd Court at Alipore. It was held that the 'Tantradharak'. Pujari or Archakas are nothing but servants of the sebait and no rights or obligations are vested to them similar to rights as vested to the sebait. It was held that the 'Tantradharak'. Pujari or Archakas are nothing but servants of the sebait and no rights or obligations are vested to them similar to rights as vested to the sebait. Learned Court below relied the Book of Hon'ble Justice Bijon Behari Mukherjee, 4th Edition, Hindu Endowment and Religious Act (Tagore Law Lecture) and quoted therefrom this effect that Purohit and his performance of worship generationwise would not confer independent right upon the members of the Purohit family to be appointed as such and would not entitle them as of right to continue in office. On consideration of matter on different angles ultimately the Court held that the property is not a public Debottor but it is in fact a private Debottor property of Haripada Chakraborty, who had the right to execute the will and the codicil which passed through the tests of judicial proceeding and thereby the right and liabilities were crystallized. Ultimately the Court held:–– "Therefore, in the light of the above I arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the case is not maintainable on the point of legality as to the permission having not obtained from the competent Court of jurisdiction to represent the deity when admittedly there is a sebait and executor, that Ramnarayan has no locus standi to represent the deity or the temple and the debottor estate when a sebait and executor i.e. the O.P. is still acting with unfettered right with no apprehension of being removed by any competent Court of law when the prayer for revocation of the grant of probate was rejected that the O.P. as sebait never acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the deity. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in my mind that this is a fit case for dismissal. The points are accordingly disposed of." 12. Learned Advocate of the petitioner vehemently urged the same points as urged in the Court below including the factual matters. I am afraid to accept such contention of the petitioner for a decision sitting in the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No point of law has been thrashed by which the petitioner may be legally entitled to file this application challenging the order of aforesaid Misc. Case. 13. I am afraid to accept such contention of the petitioner for a decision sitting in the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No point of law has been thrashed by which the petitioner may be legally entitled to file this application challenging the order of aforesaid Misc. Case. 13. Learned Advocate for the Opposite Parties submitted that under Section 1 of the Indian Trust Act, said case was not maintainable, that Section 78 of the Trust Act has no applicability and Trust Deed was not acted upon even if it is assumed that the Indian Trust Act has applicability by contending, inter alia, that in terms of Clause 3.7 at page 107 of the Book of Dr. Mukherjea, 4th Edition, it is held that mere execution of a document was not enough to put an embargo to cancel the same if same was not acted upon at all. Reliance has been made to Article 407A at page 611 of Mollas Hindu Law, 17th Edition to substantiate the arguments that the said purported Deed of Trust never was acted upon as proved by evidence, that till death Sri Chakraborty managed the affairs of the deity and accordingly it is submitted that cancellation of the Trust Deed was legal and valid. Further it is contended that since one of the trustees of the purported Trust Deed even if the same is assumed in existence, has not filed any application who is the best man to agitate the matter and the present application filed by the petitioner in the Court below was not maintainable as he had no locus standi. It is further argued that facts and the evidence as was considered by the learned Court below cannot be re-agitated herein for a different opinion of this Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Learned Advocate for the Opposite Parties relied upon the judgments passed in the case (1) Shri Radha Gobinda Jew & Ors. v. Sm. Kewala Devi Jaiswal & Ors. reported in AIR 1974 Calcutta 283, a Division Bench judgment, in the case (2) Srinivasa Reddiar & Ors. v. N. Ramaswamy Reddiar & Anr. reported in AIR 1966 SC 859 at 864 and the case (3) Sri Gopal Jew Thakur & Ors. v. Pravasini Das & Ors. reported in AIR 1967 Orissa 85 to substantiate their aforesaid arguments. 15. reported in AIR 1974 Calcutta 283, a Division Bench judgment, in the case (2) Srinivasa Reddiar & Ors. v. N. Ramaswamy Reddiar & Anr. reported in AIR 1966 SC 859 at 864 and the case (3) Sri Gopal Jew Thakur & Ors. v. Pravasini Das & Ors. reported in AIR 1967 Orissa 85 to substantiate their aforesaid arguments. 15. Considering rival contention of the parties it appears that the learned Court below by the impugned order considered all material aspects and there is no procedural irregularity and illegality and further there is no illegality in the findings with reference to the question on law as thrashed therein. It is a settled law that this Court sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not exercising the power as an Appellate Court and it has been further settled by several judgments of the Apex Court that until and unless there a gross illegality, irregularity, jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not be exercised. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioner fails and this Court cannot convert it as an Appellate Court to decide legality and validity of the impugned decision as passed by the learned Court below on determination of factual and legal aspect of the matter. 16. Besides, the aforesaid legal position, this Court is also considering the legal aspect as argued so far as the locus standi and other points are concerned. It is a settled law that though the deity has a legal entity and sui juris but deity cannot speak and as such, next friend is required to represent the deity. In the instant case even if the argument of the petitioner is accepted that the Trust Deed as executed by Haripada Chakraborty was irrevocable by application of Section 78 of the Indian Trust Act, still then the present applicant cannot be said as a competent person to agitate the matter as one of the trustees named in the Trust Deed is still alive and he has not made any challenge. On the contrary, one of the trustees has accepted the cancellation of Trust Deed and the legal sanctity of the will and codicil passed in a probate proceeding and thereby did not interfere with the management of the deity by Haripada Chakraborty so long as he was alive and even after demise of said Chakraborty. It is proved by evidence that all the devotees including one of the trustee who is still alive accepted the opposite party as a sebait in terms of the will and codicil executed by Haripada Chakraborty. There is a clear finding of the learned Court below holding that the present petitioner had no locus standi to file the said Misc. Case which was passed on legal foundation of facts and evidence on record; which cannot be said as illegal on violation of any statutory or settled legal proposition of law, hence, such findings cannot be disturbed by this Court. It is on evidence that will and codicil not only was executed on cancellation of the Trust Deed but same got legal sanctity by probate proceeding and long after such probate, when some of the parties who were the beneficiary in terms of the Trust Deed, became unsuccessful to revoke such decision of the probate proceeding. Hence, by judicial proceeding, it has been settled by the competent Court of law holding that Haripada Chakraborty executed the will and codicil by appointing opposite party as sebait. Further from the evidence, it appears that so long Haripada Chakraborty was alive, he controlled and managed the property and Trust Deed was never acted upon and after his demise in terms of will and codicil sebait concerned started to manage the affairs of the deity. It is further held by the Court below that the property was not public Debottor property with cogent reasons. The applicant claimed his status as 'Tantradharak'. Now the question whether Tantradharak is holding the status of a sebait as would empower him to file the application praying for appointment of Receiver and framing of scheme in respect of the property of the deity on declaration of the same as public Debottor property. Learned Court below however has not defined the term 'Tantradharak' and his status and functions to reach the conclusion that he had no locus standi to file application. On search of judgments, this Court is also not being enlightened to the term 'Tantradharak'. Learned Court below however has not defined the term 'Tantradharak' and his status and functions to reach the conclusion that he had no locus standi to file application. On search of judgments, this Court is also not being enlightened to the term 'Tantradharak'. However some judgments are there on issue of Action of Pujari/Archak/Purohit, as are discussed herein below to define the work of 'Tantradharak' as I have discussed later on. In the case Veerbasavaradhya & Ors. v. Devotees of Lingadagudi Mutt & Ors. reported in AIR 1973 Mysore 280 being a judgment following the views of Calcutta High Court passed in the case (5) Ananda Chandra Chakrabarti v. Broja Lal Singha & Ors. reported in AIR 1923 Calcutta 142 at page 147, it is held as follows:–– "It must not further be overlooked that the Pujari or Archak is not the sebait; he is appointed by the sebait as the purohit to conduct the worship; but that does not transfer the rights and obligations of the sebait to the purohit; Maharanee Indurjeet Kooer v. Chundermun (58); Nafar v. Kailash (59); and he is not entitled to be continued as a matter of right in his office as pujari; Nanbhai v. Trimbak (60); Narayana v. Ranga (61); Jagannatha v. Seenu (62); Sashadri v. Ranga (63)." 17. In a decision of Patna High Court reported in the case (6) Gauri Shankar v. Ambika Dutt & Ors. reported in AIR 1954 Patna 196, it has been held in para 7 as follows:– "A Pujari is appointed by the Shebait as the purohit to conduct the worship. But that does not transfer the rights and obligations of the shebait to the purohit. He is not entitled to be continued as a matter of right in his office as pujari. He is merely a servant appointed by the Shebait for the performance of ceremonies. But that does not transfer the rights and obligations of the shebait to the purohit. He is not entitled to be continued as a matter of right in his office as pujari. He is merely a servant appointed by the Shebait for the performance of ceremonies. Where the appointment of a purohit has been at the will of the founder the mere fact that the appointees have performed the worship for several generations, will not confer an independent right upon the members of the family so appointed and will not entitle of the family so appointed and will not entitle them as of eight to be continued in office as priest (7) 'Maharanee Inderjit Kuer v. Chundemun Missir', 16 WR 99 (Cal) (A); (8) 'Kali Krishna v. Makhan Lal, AIR 1923 Cal 160 (B), and (9) 'Ananda Chandra v. Broja Lal, AIR 1923 Cal 142 (C)". 18. Similar view was taken by the Division Bench of Mysore High Court in the case Veerbasavaradhya & Ors. v. Devotees of Lingadagudi Mutt & Ors., reported in AIR 1973 Mysore 280 at Paragraph-20 which reads as follows:– "An archak or poojary in a temple is not a shebait as the said expression is understood in Northern India or a dharmadarshi as those expressions are understood in Southern India. A poojary is always appointed by the shebait or dharmadarshi or dharmadhikari for the purpose of conducting the worship. Such appointment would not have the effect of conferring any right on the poojary. He is ordinarily not entitled to be continued as a matter of right in his office as Poojary. Poojaries and archaks are liable to be removed for any act of misconduct or indiscipline which would be inconsistent with the duties of the office which they hold. The above of ours is fortified by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Ananda Chandra v. Broja Lal, ILR 50 Cal 291 : AIR 1923 Cal 142. 19. Both the aforesaid two cases, the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was relied upon wherein the legal principle was settled that the Pujari was only a servant of the sebait appointed for due performance of the Puja and other ceremonies. It has been held by the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case Ananda Chandra Chakrabarti v. Broja Lal Singha & Ors. It has been held by the Calcutta High Court judgment in the case Ananda Chandra Chakrabarti v. Broja Lal Singha & Ors. reported in ILR 50 Cal 292 : AIR 1923 Cal 142, that pujari is a servant of the sebait and no part of the rights and obligations of sebait are transferred to him. In both the two decisions, it has been held further that the Pujari or the Purohit has no independent right to continue in such status and more particularly to enjoy any vested right, as the relationship with the original devote who founded the deity and/or who appointed a sebait qua the purohit/Pujari is nothing but a relationship of employer and employee. The original founder of the deity and/or sebait is the sole authority to manage the affairs of the deity and under the management of such affairs appointment of a Pujari or Purohit by them, is an action. Hence, it is clear that pujari and/or Purohit has no independent right to represent the deity in view of settled law as pronounced in the aforesaid judicial pronouncement of the Courts. Now the question as cropped up in this application namely whether 'Tantradharak' is a servant appointed by the Sebait or his status is equal to Sebait, to be considered. On consideration of the settled views as expressed by the different High Courts namely Calcutta, Patna and Mysore holding, inter alia, that Pujari or Purohit/Archak is a servant appointed by the Sebait and his status is not at all equal to Sebait, the point cannot be ascertained as in the said judgments, decision was given in respect of status of Pujari/Purohit/Archak but not of 'Tantradharak'. For an answer to the question, the meaning of the word 'Tantradharak' to be looked into from the different dictionaries on Sanskrit Literature as well as other dictionaries. In the Book VACHASPAATYAM' (A Comprehensive Sanskrit Dictionary), compiled by Sri Taranatha Tarkavachaspati, Professor of Grammar and Philosophy, Govt. Sanskrit College, Calcutta in Volume. For an answer to the question, the meaning of the word 'Tantradharak' to be looked into from the different dictionaries on Sanskrit Literature as well as other dictionaries. In the Book VACHASPAATYAM' (A Comprehensive Sanskrit Dictionary), compiled by Sri Taranatha Tarkavachaspati, Professor of Grammar and Philosophy, Govt. Sanskrit College, Calcutta in Volume. IV published from the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanai-1 in the year 1962 which is also termed as Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Work No. 94, the word 'Tantradharak' has been defined at page 1223, which reads as follows:– rUrz/kkjd iqŒ rUrza deZukidi/ofrue;a /kkj;fr /kkfj&[kqys~ gr&A ^^,dlUrz fu;qDr% L;knijLUr& /kkjd%A r`h;a eUrzda ozw ;ku` rr% deZ lekpjsr~** x//kifjnhDrs deZLo:i tukikdkiqLudokcdzsA* rUrz /kkjd iqLrd /kkjd %** l~ŒuŒ j?kquUnu %A "Tantradharaka Pu Tantram Karmajnapakta Padhyati Manyang Dharayati Dhari-Khul. "Ekstantra Niyurkta Syadaparastrantadharaks. Tritiyang Mantrakam Broyat Tato Karma Samacharet." Grdyaporidokte Karmaswarupajnapakapustakavachakre. "Tantradharaka Pustakadharaka" Su Ta Raghunandana." 20. In the Book 'Bangia Vishwakosh' compiled by Nagendra Nath Basu in its 7th Volume at page 548, the word 'Tantradharak' also has been defined, which in Bengali reads as follows:- "……………" "Tantradharak (Pung) Tantrang Tantragyapakpadhatigranthang Dharayati Dhari Nril Pustakadharaka. Pujaprabhiti Dharmakaje Jini Pushtak Dharen, Yagik Bishes Paradarshi Hailao Tantradharak Byatit Kono Puje Yagya Prabhitir Anusthan Karibe Na. Pujadite Ekjan Puja Karite Basibe, Opor Ekjan Tantra (Pushtak) Dharitya Baliya Dibe." 21. From the aforesaid two definitions it is explicitly, clear that "Tantradharak" is a person who assist the Pujari or Pujak or the Purohit by reading the 'Tantra' that is the Book wherein the different Mantra's are codified. It appears from the definitions that the 'Tantradharak' is required to be a learned one whose function is to chant the 'Mantra' from the Books i.e. 'Tantra' as is repeated by the pujari on hearing the same who is engaged to offer the Seba Puja. It is accordingly clear that Tantradharak and Pujari and/or Purohit all are engaged to perform the Ceremonies of Puja combinedly in different manners as prescribed in the religious text. In Religious Text wherein the rules, regulations of procedures to offer Puja to the God and Goddess have been prescribed, the performance of the duties of 'Tantradharak' also has been codified. From the script wherein procedures to perform Durga Puja has been prescribed, it is mentioned "Debinancha Jatha Durga Barnanang Bramhono Jatha, Tatha Samasta Karmanang Tantradharakamanuttamama." From the word 'Tantra', the performance of duty of Tantradharak also can be ascertained. From the script wherein procedures to perform Durga Puja has been prescribed, it is mentioned "Debinancha Jatha Durga Barnanang Bramhono Jatha, Tatha Samasta Karmanang Tantradharakamanuttamama." From the word 'Tantra', the performance of duty of Tantradharak also can be ascertained. The word 'Tantra' can be divided from its original derivatives, it is a composition of the two words 'Tan', & Tra', the word 'Tan' means 'Vistar' i.e. expansion, So in the puja Ceremonies it is the duty of 'Tantradharak' to create the environment and to make the correct sound waves by way of reciting the 'Mantra's', which have different and distinct frequency in terms of Physical Science. In Physics, the sound has been defined nothing but a wave length with variable frequency which upon being transmitted through air causes a vibration to the sensory nerves of human body resulting an effect in the mind of the persons concerned who hear it either as a devotee or a person who is chanting this Mantra's. Every Mantra's is nothing but a combined effect of association of the words as creates different vibration due to the different wave lengths and frequency of such wave lengths. In Hindu Scripture accordingly 'Sabda' the word has been defined as 'Bramha', 'Bramha' has been defined as omnipotent and omnipowerful energy. Our forefather 'Rishi's' discovered the Science of Sound Waves in age old days and accordingly codified and synthesized different sound waves for different Puja Ceremonies. The Puja Ceremonies as are performed by the members of the Hindu Community is nothing but for the purpose of elevation of mind and soul to reach and achieve supremacy over the mind and of this materialistic world to realize 'Bramha Gyana'. The different wave lengths of Mantra's helps the human beings to realize supreme vibration of life and it makes an overall development not only the mind but also the body itself in the angle of Physiological and Psychological context. The different wave lengths of Mantra's helps the human beings to realize supreme vibration of life and it makes an overall development not only the mind but also the body itself in the angle of Physiological and Psychological context. As for example, the Mantra 'OM' when is pronounced properly it creates a vibration through different sensory nerves of the human beings resulting the secretion of different chemicals which makes the body healthy and free from ailments as well as it serves purpose to attain the elevation of the mind in a self-less stage which in terms of Hindu Religious doctrine is called achieving of 'Param Bramha.' Similarly, the Mantra as is used to worship the Lord Krishna namely 'Cling' has different wave length and its sound waves makes different vibration to the human body to achieve the self realizations. It has been codified in the Old Medicinal Books that different Mantra's cures the different diseases and it makes the body fit. The duty of the 'Tantradharak' accordingly in terms of the script is nothing but spreading of the sound waves by chanting the Mantra's as are written in the 'Tantra' that is the Book. Accordingly in Hindu Society when any religious performance is made by worshipping to God either following the Vedic process or Tantrik process or Ashramik process or by daily Puja in the houses, everywhere the Pujari is required to be assisted by a 'Tantradharak' whose duty is to recite in proper tune the Mantra's from Tantra's. Hence, having regard to the aforesaid definition of the word 'Tantradharak' and taking note of the definition of such by Raghunandana as already referred to by referring the Book 'Vachaspatyam', this Court is of the opinion that the duty of 'Tantradharak' is nothing but the performance of a part of Seba Puja by reciting the Mantra's which is nothing but expanding sound waves of different frequency to make the environment tuned and charged with energy with such vibration of sound waves as would creates an impact on human body which will help to realize the spirituality of life, elevating the mental stage to a higher degree far form the materialistic world and its attachment. It may be that sometimes the 'Tantradharak' is considered as more literate person then the Purohit and/or Pujari but irrespective of such fact Tantradharak is in the group of Pujaris and/or Archaks. It may be that sometimes the 'Tantradharak' is considered as more literate person then the Purohit and/or Pujari but irrespective of such fact Tantradharak is in the group of Pujaris and/or Archaks. 'Tantradharak' is also an appointee by the Sebait to perform such function on payments of money. Accordingly, I hold that Tantradharak is also the servant appointed by the Sebait of the Deity and he has no separate locus standi to represent the deity. He is not in the status of sebait. His position may be equivalent to Pujari, Archak, Purohit etc. or a little bit higher. 22. Considering the aforesaid meaning of Tantradharak, hence, it appears that his status is not equal to the status of the sebait and/or a founder of a deity but he is also a person having a relationship which can be termed as relationship of servant to offer the Seba Puja of the deity being appointed by founder of the deity or by the sebait of the deity. Hence, present petitioner being a 'Tantradharak' had no locus standi to be the next friend of the deity to file application. In that view of the matter, the point of locus standi as has been considered by the learned Court below by adjudicating the same against the petitioner though without defining the work of Tantradharak, in my view is not vitiated with any illegality, as on analysis of his work, it is found that his status is not of sebait. 23. It is a settled position that the locus standi is the basic foundation to file any action and unless and until such locus standi is satisfied, action is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, I am afraid to interfere with the views expressed by learned Court below on locus standi issue of the present petitioner to move the application. Once, the locus standi point fails, the action is not maintainable and only or, that ground learned Court below could have rejected the application but since the Court decided the other points and the same has been re-agitated again herein by the petitioner, same points are also being answered by me. Once, the locus standi point fails, the action is not maintainable and only or, that ground learned Court below could have rejected the application but since the Court decided the other points and the same has been re-agitated again herein by the petitioner, same points are also being answered by me. The petitioner admittedly as 'Tantradharak' filed application in the Court below under the Indian Trust Act praying for declaration of the property of deity as public 'Debottor property' and thereby prayed for framing of scheme for management of the same and also prayed for injunction restraining the opposite parties from giving effect of decision termination his function as 'Tantradharak'. A point has been raised that Deed of Trust in terms of Section 78 of Indian Trust Act was not revocable as there was no revocation clause in the said Trust Deed. Section 78 reads as follows:– "78. Revocation of trust. – A trust created by will may be revoked at the pleasure of the testator. A trust otherwise created can be revoked only–– (a) where all the beneficiaries are competent to contract-by their consent; (b) where the trust has been declared by a non-testamentary instrument or by word of month-in exercise of a power of revocation expressly reserved to the author of the trust; or (c) where the trust is for the payment of the debts of the author of the trust, and has not been communicated to the creditors at the pleasure of the author of the trust." 24. It has been urged by the learned Advocate of the petitioner that in terms of the Section 78 of the said Act, the Deed of cancellation of such Trust Deed had no legal impact and effect and in that view of matter all judicial proceeding namely the probate proceeding relating to the will and codicil of Haripada Chakraborty also became nonest. As a counter of such argument it has been urged by the learned Advocate of the opposite party that in view of Section 1 of the said Act, no application under Indian Trust Act was maintainable. Section 1 of the Indian Trust Act reads as follows:– "1. Short title, commencement –– This Act may be called "The Indian Trusts Act, 1882" and it shall come into force on the first day of March, 1882. Section 1 of the Indian Trust Act reads as follows:– "1. Short title, commencement –– This Act may be called "The Indian Trusts Act, 1882" and it shall come into force on the first day of March, 1882. Local extent –– It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands; but the Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the official Gazette, extend it to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands or to any part thereof. Savings––But nothing herein contained affects the rules of Mohammedan Law as to waqf, or the mutual relations of the members of an undivided family as determined by customary or personal law, or applies to public or probate religious or charitable endowments, or to trusts to distribute prizes taken in war among the captors; and nothing in the second chapter of this Act applies to trusts created before the said day." 25. On a bare reading of the saving clause of Section 1 aforesaid, it appears that the said Act is not applicable to any charitable endowments or religious endowments. Admittedly the endowment as made is religious endowment relating to the property of the deity and in that view of the matter Section 78 has no applicability. Reliance may be placed to the Full Bench judgment of Madras High Court passed in the case (10) Tangella Narasimhaswami, Dharmakartha of Sri Kodanda Ramchandra Moorty v. Madini Venkatalingam & Ors. reported in AIR 1927 Madras 636. I am tempted to quote the relevant portion for effective adjudication of the matter, which reads as follows:– "A trust is in effect the gift of property or an interest in property to a person or institution by or through the intervention of a trustee and this document evidences such a transaction. In this view it is clear that the document comes within the saving clause of Section 1 of the Trusts Act and Section 5 which requires registration of deeds of trusts relating to immovable property does not apply." 26. Same view reiterated in the judgment passed in the case (11) Gopu v. Sami reported in 1905 (28) Madras 517 and in that view of the matter it is clear that the action in terms of the application as tiled under the Indian Trust Act read with Section 14 of the Religious Endowment Act was not maintainable. 27. Same view reiterated in the judgment passed in the case (11) Gopu v. Sami reported in 1905 (28) Madras 517 and in that view of the matter it is clear that the action in terms of the application as tiled under the Indian Trust Act read with Section 14 of the Religious Endowment Act was not maintainable. 27. A point has been raised by the learned Advocate of the opposite party that even if Indian Trust Act has the applicability, Section 78 did not impose a total embargo to revoke a Trust Deed which was not at all acted upon. Reliance has been placed to the Article 3.7 at page 107 of the Book of Dr. Bijan Behari Mukherjea styled as Hindu Law and Charitable Trust, which reads as follows:– "3.7. Mere execution of document not enough if there was no intention to act upon the deed –– When there is a deed of dedication executed by the donor, the mere execution of the document though it purports on the face of it to dedicate property to religious or charitable uses, is not enough to constitute a valid endowment. It must be proved that the donor intended to divest himself of his ownership in the property dedicated. "The tests of a bona fide or nominal endowment are: how did the founder treat the property or how have the descendants treated it; has the income of the endowed lands been continuously applied to the object of dedication?" In Kashiswaree v. Krishna Kamini, Their Lordships after construing the deed in the case to be a deed of dedication said: "The lower Court has not ...... tried the fact of the bona fide nature of the endowment with reference to the use of the proceeds from the time of the confirmation of the endowment exclusively for religious and pious purposes, but has confined its decision to the inference drawn from the wording of the deeds .... If, however; the results of this enquiry establish that Koylas himself never intended that the proceeds were so to be used and accordingly they were not so used, the case for the plaintiff must fail." 28. In order to establish a valid endowment it must be proved that the grant was made with the intention that the profits should be applied for the particular religious purpose and that the profits have been so applied. In order to establish a valid endowment it must be proved that the grant was made with the intention that the profits should be applied for the particular religious purpose and that the profits have been so applied. No endowment is created if the deed was not meant to be acted upon and the founder had other ulterior motives, e.g., tying up of property in the family or keeping the property out of the reach of the creditors. When, however, the acts and conduct of the parties show that the income of the property was employed in the performance of religious rites laid down by the founder, the mere fact that the members of the grantor's family were nominated sebaits, or they were to be remunerated out of the endowed fund are not proper grounds for holding the dedication to be nominal. In Watson v. Ramchand, the question arose regarding the validity of an endowment created by one Pudmolochan. There were two deeds executed by Pudmolochan, but it was proved that from the time of the execution of the deed, until after the death of Pudmolochan-a period of about three years and three months-no change was effected in the accounts or in the management of, or dealing with, the business or estates or the proceeds thereof. Mortgages were executed in which Pudmolochan joined and everything appears to have gone on in the same manner as if the deeds had never been executed. In these circumstances, it was held by Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee that the deeds were fictitious or benami and no effective or genuine endowment was created. 29. In a case which came up before a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court a Hindu purported to dedicate practically the whole of his property to an idol by a deed of endowment executed sometime before his death. It was provided in this deed that the settlor should apply for mutation of names in favour of the idol, and that he should use the income of the property for the expenses of Puja and Rajbhog and for the repairs of the temple, and that he should keep regular accounts of the income and expenditure. The settlor himself was to be the first manager, after him his wife, and thereafter his daughter's sons and their descendants. The settlor himself was to be the first manager, after him his wife, and thereafter his daughter's sons and their descendants. Some sixteen months after the execution of this deed, the settlor died and was succeeded as manager by his wife. The widow brought a suit for a declaration that the property was endowed property, and in the course of trial it was proved that no attempt was made to obtain mutation of names, that no accounts were forthcoming relating to the administration of the property by the settlor, that the expenditure for the idol did not amount to more than one-tenth of the income, and that the widow was unable to account for her own dealings with the property which was the subject-matter of the suit. It was held that these circumstances showed that there was no real dedication of the property to religious purpose but only an attempt to create a perpetuity in favour of the descendants of the settlor's daughter. 30. Of course, if a valid dedication is once complete, there would be no power left in the donor to revoke it and no assertion on his part, or the subsequent conduct of himself and his descendants contrary to such dedication would have the effect of nullifying it. It may be stated that when an endowment is created by a will and is to take effect on the death of the testator, then, unless there is evidence to show that the testator gave directions during his own life time contrary to the terms of the will, his mode of dealing with the property is irrelevant for the purpose of determining as to whether the endowment is real or fictitious. The acts of the manager after the death of the testator contrary to the terms of the endowment cannot also be regarded as reflecting the intention of the testator." 31. Further, reliance has been made to the Article 407 A of Molla's Hindu Law, 17th Edition, which reads as follows :–– "407A. The acts of the manager after the death of the testator contrary to the terms of the endowment cannot also be regarded as reflecting the intention of the testator." 31. Further, reliance has been made to the Article 407 A of Molla's Hindu Law, 17th Edition, which reads as follows :–– "407A. Illusory endowments –– (1) The mere execution of a deed, though it may purport on the face of it to dedicate property to an idol, is not enough to constitute a valid endowment; for the real object of the executant may be to defraud creditors, or to defeat the provisions of the ordinary law of decent, or to restrain alienations and keep the property in perpetuity in the family. It is necessary for the validity of a deed of endowment that the executant should divest himself of the property. Whether he had done so or not, is to be determined by his subsequent acts and conduct. Thus, if the profits of the property are appropriated by the executant to his own use, and not to the worship of the idol, and his subsequent dealings with the property show that he did not intend to create an endowment, the dedication will be inoperative, and the property cannot be treated as debottar, i.e. belonging to the idol. The property will still continue to be his, and it may be attached in execution of a decree against him. Similarly, if a Hindu purchases property in the name of his idol, without setting up the idol for public worship and without appointing priests for its worship, the property does not become the property of the idol, but remains his own private property. However, when an endowment is created by a will and is to take effect on the death of the testator, then unless there is evidence to show that the testator gave directions during his lifetime contrary to the terms of the will his mode of dealing with the endowed property is irrelevant for the purpose of determining the true nature of the endowment. The conduct of the manager after the testator's death, even if it is contrary to the terms of the will; cannot also be regarded as reflecting the intentions of the testator. The conduct of the manager after the testator's death, even if it is contrary to the terms of the will; cannot also be regarded as reflecting the intentions of the testator. (2) Where there is no real dedication of property for the worship of an idol, but only an attempt to create a perpetuity in favour of the settlor's descendants, the gift to the idol is void. The mere fact, however, that the members of the settlor's family are nominated as sebaits or mutawallis of the temple and that they are to be remunerated out of the income of the property is no ground for holding that the dedication is not real, provided the remuneration is reasonable having regard to the income of the property." 32. Having regard to the views as expressed by the celebrated authors and jurists in the field in question, namely Dr. Mukherjea and Molla, with due respect I have to accept the same proposition. In the instant case, it appears that the Trust Deed was cancelled within two months and odd of execution of the same by the settler himself and during the life time of the executor of said Trust Deed, the property never vested to the sebaits in terms of the said Trust Deed but entire control was with Haripada Chakraborty, the founder of the deity. Even one of the sebaits in terms of the said Trust Deed when even alive today, no challenge has been made by him, who is the competent person to challenge the action of the opposite parties to act as sebaits in terms of the will and codicil as got the legal sanction in a probate proceeding. On the contrary in appears that the two nephews of Haripada Chakraborty, the founder of the deity, unsuccessfully challenged the findings of probate proceeding and their application praying revocation and/or discharge of Probate Certificate was cancelled. On the contrary in appears that the two nephews of Haripada Chakraborty, the founder of the deity, unsuccessfully challenged the findings of probate proceeding and their application praying revocation and/or discharge of Probate Certificate was cancelled. Taking into account of the conduct and behavior of Haripada Chakraborty, the founder of the deity, vis-a-vis devotees concerned, the purported trustees in terms of the Trust Deed as well as the Pujaris and 'Tantradharak' the present petitioner, as has been elaborately discussed by the learned Court below on consideration of the evidence of record, it is explicitly clear that the said Trust Deed never was acted upon and accordingly that may be termed as illusory endowment as per the language of the Molla, the jurist. 33. In that view of the matter, the findings of the learned Court below since based on settled judicial pronouncement as made by different High Courts, I am in complete agreement with the said view and I do not find any reason to interfere with such views and findings expressed by learned Court below, sitting in the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to the aforesaid legal propositions and the observations as made by me, accordingly, this application stands dismissed with cost of 200 G.M. which to be paid by the petitioner within a month from this date. Let urgent xerox certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously.