What are essentials for the creation of a valid endowment? What are its kinds ?

(b) Whether an Idol is a Juridical Person ? — Idol is a legal person and is also a judicial person. It can institute a suit and a suit car. also be brought against it. Its interest is taken care of by a person who administers the idol. Legally the administrator has the same rights which are possessed by an administrator of minor’s property. The administrator is referred to as Shebait and he exercises the rights vested in the idol and in fact he is the guardian of the idol. He can also contest the suit on behalf of the idol and the suit brought against it. The possession of the property dedicated to the idol is in the hands of the Shebait Any suit brought by the idol or against it is in fact brought in the name of the idol.

Whether dedication to idol not in existence is valid ?—Inspite of the established principle under Hindu law that dedication can only be made in favour of a person in existence, Calcutta High Court has held in Bhupali Ram Vs. Ramlal, 37 C 128 I. C. 642, that a gift or bequest to an idol not in existence at the time of gift or the testator’s death is not invalid. The principles barring a bequest or right in favour of an unborn person is inapplicable to an idol.

(c) Can an endowment alienated ?- Property dedicated to religious uses is called ‘debutter property’. “Debutter” means literally “belonging to deity.” The general rule is that property, given for religious worship and for charities connected with it. is inalienable, (either by sale or mortgage). But a Shebait or Mahant in charge of the property, in his capacity of Shebait or Mahant and as manager of the property for the purpose of keeping up the religious worship and for the benefit and preservation of the property can do so. The power of a Shebait or Mahant to alienate debutter property is analogous to that of a manager for infant heir. He has no power to alienate debutter property except “in case of need or for the benefit of the estate.” Hanooman Prasad v.s. Mst. Babooee, 61 LA. 393, The Allahabad High Court has affirmed the principle in Chhedda Lai Vs. Unjiarrre Lai, A.I.R. 1987. The Court observed that the power ofalienation of a Shebait can be compared with the power of a manager of a minor coparcener. Generally the property dedicated to the religious and charitable purposes are inalienable but legal necessity is an exception to it. It is for the transferee to establish that the necessity was so acute that except the alienation there was no other alternative.