JUDGMENT : This revisional application, at the instance of the plaintiff is directed against the order dated June 20, 2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Bankura in Title Suit No. 116 of 2010. By the impugned order, the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 to be substituted in the suit as the defendants. 2. The brief facts of the case, necessary to be considered for deciding the present revisional application are that the petitioner filed the suit, before the learned Court below against the opposite party nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and the defendant no. 3, since deceased. In his plaint, it is the case of the petitioner that by a registered deed of Arpannama dated 2nd May, 1928, one Baikuntha Nath Chakraborty, since deceased (hereinafter referred to as "the settlor") dedicated his immovable landed properties situated both in the city of Kolkata and in the district of Bankura to the Deity, namely Sri Annapurna Debi Mata Thakurani, (hereinafter referred to as the "said Deity"), and appointed himself as the shebait of the said Deity. According to the petitioner, as per the said Arpannama, the settlor appointed himself as the shebait of the said Deity during his life time, after his death his three sons would be the shebaits and so long as they would remain joint, all the said three sons would act as shebaits and carry out the seba puja of the said Deity but, if the said three sons got themselves separated from each other, each of them would perform the seba puja by pala, that is, by turn for one year each. In his plaint, the petitioner alleged that the opposite party nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and the original defendant no. 3 committed various illegal acts and omissions and rendered themselves to be removed from the shebaitship of the said Deity. On these allegations, in the suit the petitioner claimed a decree declaring the opposite party nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and the original defendant no. 3 have not performed their duties as enjoined under the said Deed of Arpannama, a decree for their removal from the shebaitship of the said Deity, as well as a decree directing them to render accounts for the period from April 01, 2008 to March 31, 2009. 1, 2, 4, 5 and the original defendant no. 3 have not performed their duties as enjoined under the said Deed of Arpannama, a decree for their removal from the shebaitship of the said Deity, as well as a decree directing them to render accounts for the period from April 01, 2008 to March 31, 2009. During the pendency of the suit, on December 06, 2013 the original defendant no. 3, died intestate, leaving behind his wife and four daughters as his heirs and legal representatives, being opposite party nos. 3(a) to 3(e) of this application. Immediately after the death of the original defendant no. 3, on December 09, 2013 the petitioner filed an application in the suit alleging that as per the said Deed of Arpannama, only the male heirs and legal representatives of a deceased shebait can become the shebait of the said Deity and since the defendant no. 3 had no son, his wife and daughters are not entitled to be shebaits of the said Deity and prayed for expunging the name of the original defendant no. 3. By order dated December 10, 2013 the learned Court below allowed the said application of the petitioner by directing that the name of deceased defendant no. 3 be expunged from the cause title of the plaint. On February 19, 2014 the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 filed an application before the learned Court below for substituting themselves in the plaint, in place and stead of the deceased defendant no. 3. The petitioner contested the said application filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3. In the said application, it was the contention of the petitioner that in view of the order dated December 09, 2013 passed by the learned Court below expunging the name of the deceased defendant no. 3 from the cause title of the plaint, the application of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 was barred by the principle of res judicata. The petitioner further contended that in any event, as per the said Deed of Arpannama only the male heirs and legal representatives of any shebait of the said Deity are entitled to inherit shebaitship and the female heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 have no locus standi to claim shebaitship of the said Deity. The petitioner further contended that in any event, as per the said Deed of Arpannama only the male heirs and legal representatives of any shebait of the said Deity are entitled to inherit shebaitship and the female heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 have no locus standi to claim shebaitship of the said Deity. By order dated June 20, 2014 the learned Court below repelled both the said contentions raised by the petitioner and allowed the female heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 to be substituted in the suit as the defendant nos. 3(a) to 3(e). The learned Court below held that the said order dated December 09, 2013 did not decide any issue in the suit and, as such, the said application filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 3 under Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not hit by the principle of res judicata. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddheswar Das & Ors. v. Smt. Maya Das & Ors., reported in 2003 CWN 929, the learned Court below further held that shebaitship being a heritable property and in the absence of any clause in the said Deed of Arpannama prohibiting a female heir of a shebait to inherit the shebaitship of the Deity, the female heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 are entitled to be substituted in place and stead of the deceased defendant no. 3. As mentioned earlier, it is the said order dated June 20, 2014 passed by the learned Court below, which is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application. 3. Assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Court below Mr. 3 are entitled to be substituted in place and stead of the deceased defendant no. 3. As mentioned earlier, it is the said order dated June 20, 2014 passed by the learned Court below, which is the subject matter of challenge in this revisional application. 3. Assailing the impugned order passed by the learned Court below Mr. Dilip Kumar Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, strenuously contended that from a reading of said registered deed of Arpannama executed by the said settlor dedicating the suit properties in favour of the said Deity, it is clear that after the death of the said settlor so long as his three sons would remain joint, they would remain the shebaits and in case of the said three sons separated themselves from each other, they ceased to be shebaits and each of them would become only a paladar, having a right to worship the Deity separately for one year each. According to Mr. Banerjee, in the present case, the petitioner and the defendants in the suit have failed to remain joint and, as such, they are not the shebaits of the said Deity and they became paladars of the said Deity. It was argued that the female heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 cannot claim to be substituted in the suit in place and stead of the deceased defendant no. 3. In support of such contention, reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Padmabati Dassi & Ors. v. Biswanath Dhar & Ors., reported in AIR 1976 Cal 344 . In paragraph 5 of the said decision, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J (as His Lordship then was) held that shebaitship is property but pala of shebait or turn of worship is a right of peculiar nature. It was strenuously urged on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below allowing the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent no. 3 to be substituted as defendant nos. 3(a) to 3(e) of the suit, is vitiated by patent illegality and, as such, this Court should set aside the same. The petitioner also urged that in view of the order dated December 09, 2013 passed by the learned Court below, expunging the name of the original defendant no. 3 to be substituted as defendant nos. 3(a) to 3(e) of the suit, is vitiated by patent illegality and, as such, this Court should set aside the same. The petitioner also urged that in view of the order dated December 09, 2013 passed by the learned Court below, expunging the name of the original defendant no. 3 from the cause title of the plaint, the substitution application filed by the opposite party nos. 3(a) to 3(e) was hit by the principle of res judicata and the learned Court below fell into an error of law in allowing the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 to be substituted as defendants in the suit. It was the petitioner's last contention that in any event, the application filed by the opposite party nos. 3(a) to 3(e) for their substitution in the suit, in place and stead of the deceased defendant no. 3 was barred by limitation. 4. However, opposing the revisional application on behalf of the opposite party nos. 3(a) to 3(e), Mr. Tapas Mukherjee, learned advocate strenuously contended that the order passed by the learned Court below is a well reasoned order and the same suffers from no infirmity. He referred to the said Deed of Arpannama and submitted that the said settlor did not put any restriction to any female heir and legal representative of any of his son becoming a shebait of the said Deity. He also drew the attention of this Court to the averments made by the petitioner in his plaint where the petitioner has categorically claimed that the defendants in the suit to be the shebaits of the said Deity and also claimed a decree for their removal from the shebaitship of the said Deity. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddheswar Das (supra), Mr. Mukherjee contended that it is well settled law that shebaitship is a heritable property and in view of the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly Section 14 thereof, the female heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 are entitled to claim their right as a shebait of the said Deity and to have themselves substituted in the suit, in place and stead of the deceased defendant no. 3. 3 are entitled to claim their right as a shebait of the said Deity and to have themselves substituted in the suit, in place and stead of the deceased defendant no. 3. It was argued that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the application of the opposite party nos. 3(a) to 3(e) for their substitution is barred by the principle of res judicata and the laws of limitation is devoid of any merit. 5. I have considered the materials on record as well as the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the opposite party nos. 3(a) to 3(e). From the averments made by the petitioner in his plaint it is clear that he himself claimed the defendants including the deceased defendant no. 3 to be the shebaits of the said Deity, the defendants have committed various breaches of their duties as the shebaits of the Deity and, as such, claimed a decree for their removal as the Shebaits of the said Deity. Further, a reading of the said Deed of Arpannama goes to show that the settlor did not put any restriction to any female heir of his sons becoming a shebait of the said Deity. 6. It is now well settled that shebaitship is property and the succession to the same follows the ordinary rules governing a secular property. It is also settled law that shebaitship is in the nature of immovable property, the same is heritable by the widow of the last male holder unless there is an usage or custom by a different nature in cases where the founder has not disposed of the shebaiti right in the endowment created by him and after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, particularly Section 14(1) thereof, a female heir of a deceased shebait has the absolute right to succeed to the shebaitship. An authority for this view can be found in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Charan Shukla v. Shri Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra Madan Gopalji Maharaj & Anr., reported in AIR 1985 SC 905 . In the said decision, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J (as His Lordship then was) held that it is well settled by the authorities that shebaitship is a property which is heritable. In the said decision, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J (as His Lordship then was) held that it is well settled by the authorities that shebaitship is a property which is heritable. His Lordship further held that the devolution of the office of shebait depends on the terms of the deed or the will or on the endowment or the act by which the Deity was installed and property consecrated or given to the Deity, where there is no provision in the endowment or in the deed or will made by the founder as to the mode of succession or where the mode of succession in the deed or the will or endowment comes to an end, the title to the property or to the management and control of the property, as the case may be, follows the ordinary rules of inheritance according to Hindu Law. Even in the case of Siddheswar Das (supra) the Division Bench of this Court held that the female their of deceased shebait can inherit the right of shebaitship. 7. In the present case, there cannot be any doubt that although, as per the said Deed of Arpannama, the petitioner and the defendants, including the deceased defendant no. 3 in the suit separated themselves from each other and each of them became entitled to a turn of worship of the Deity for one year each individually, but still all of them remained shebaits of the said Deity. Therefore, the Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sm. Padmabati Dassi (supra) which was rendered in a different set of facts does not come to any assistance of the petitioner. In the present case, after enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the female heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 are all entitled to inherit the right of shebaitship of the said Deity and, as such, the impugned order passed by the learned Court below suffers from no infirmity. With regard to the point urged on behalf of the petitioner that the application filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 3 to be hit by principle of res judicata, I do not find any merit for the reason that by no means the said order dated December 10, 2013 can be construed to have decided any issue in the suit. 8. 3 to be hit by principle of res judicata, I do not find any merit for the reason that by no means the said order dated December 10, 2013 can be construed to have decided any issue in the suit. 8. As per Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the prescribed time period for filing an application for substitution of any heir and legal representative of a deceased plaintiff or the deceased defendant is 90 days from the date of the death of the deceased party. In the instant case, the defendant no. 3 died on December 6, 2013 and his heirs and legal representatives filed the application for their substitution in the suit as the defendants on February 19, 2014, that is, within the prescribed period of limitation provided under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the application filed by the opposite party nos. 3(a) to 3(e) for substituting themselves in the suit in place and stead of the deceased defendant no. 3 was barred by limitation. 9. For all the reasons as aforesaid, there is no merit in this revisional application and the same fails. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.