Idols not 'perpetual minor', may lose property: Justice Khan
A plea was advanced that an idol being a minor cannot be deprived of its ownership of a property which has been occupied by others under the doctrine of adverse possession.
By PTI |
LUCKNOW: The idols or deity are not "perpetual minors" and can also lose the right over a property under the doctrine of adverse possession, Justice S U Khan of the Allahabad High Court said in his ruling on the Ayodhya title suits today.
"It is held that idol/deity is not minor (perpetual) for the purposes of limitation and debutter property may be lost through adverse possession," the judge said in his 285-page order.
A plea was advanced that an idol being a minor cannot be deprived of its ownership of a property which has been occupied by others under the doctrine of adverse possession.
"In my opinion the observation that an idol is in the position of a minor is confined only to the aspect that a minor himself cannot file suit.
"And during his minority if a suit is to be filed, it can be filed only through his guardian similarly idol cannot file suit by itself and it can be filed only through someone else who is normally to be a Shabait and in exceptional cases any other worshipper," Justice Khan, quoting various apex court judgements, said.
According to the doctrine of adverse possession, even a rightful owner of a property may lose his title over it if another person is occupying it for a particular period without being challenged.
The rights of minors are protected under the doctrine till they attain majority.
The counsel for Bahgwan Sri Ram Virajman, though unsuccessfully, attempted to prove that the rights of idols over a property are protected forever.
Justice Khan, however, allowed the plea that deity is a perpetual minor vis-a-vis taking benefits under the Limitation Act 1963 and for approaching the courts.
"It is held that idol/deity is not minor (perpetual) for the purposes of limitation and debutter property may be lost through adverse possession," the judge said in his 285-page order.
A plea was advanced that an idol being a minor cannot be deprived of its ownership of a property which has been occupied by others under the doctrine of adverse possession.
"In my opinion the observation that an idol is in the position of a minor is confined only to the aspect that a minor himself cannot file suit.
"And during his minority if a suit is to be filed, it can be filed only through his guardian similarly idol cannot file suit by itself and it can be filed only through someone else who is normally to be a Shabait and in exceptional cases any other worshipper," Justice Khan, quoting various apex court judgements, said.
According to the doctrine of adverse possession, even a rightful owner of a property may lose his title over it if another person is occupying it for a particular period without being challenged.
ADVERTISEMENT
The rights of minors are protected under the doctrine till they attain majority.
The counsel for Bahgwan Sri Ram Virajman, though unsuccessfully, attempted to prove that the rights of idols over a property are protected forever.
Justice Khan, however, allowed the plea that deity is a perpetual minor vis-a-vis taking benefits under the Limitation Act 1963 and for approaching the courts.
Download
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
The Economic Times Business News App for the Latest News in Business, Sensex, Stock Market Updates & More.
Download
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
The Economic Times News App for Quarterly Results, Latest News in ITR, Business, Share Market, Live Sensex News & More.
Related Articles
Shah Rukh Khan almost refused the film that made him an overnight star: ‘He had signed…’2026-06-24T19:21:44Z- Pakistan court sentences 4 leaders of Imran Khan's party to 10-year jail, former FM Qureshi acquitted2026-06-20T13:58:53Z
- Bihar court grants interim relief to educator Khan Sir in coaching institute firing case2026-06-20T05:13:04Z
ADVERTISEMENT
