Judicial Dictionary
Ram Rattan, through Lrs. vs. Bajrang Lal and ors. (1978) 3 SCC 236 wherein while dealing with the question whether hereditary office of Shebait is immovable property, it was noted that :
“The question then is whether the hereditary office of Shebait is immovable property. Much before the enactment of the Transfer of Property Act a question arose in the context of the Limitation Act then in force whether a suit for a share in the worship and the emoluments incidental to the same would be a suit for recovery of immovable property or an interest in immovable property. In Krishnabhat bia Hiragange vs. Kanabhat bia Mahalbhat etc. 6 Bom HCR 137 after referring to various texts of Hindu Law and the commentaries of English commentators thereon, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held as under :
Although, therefore, the office of a priest in a TEMPLE, when it is not annexed to the ownership of any land, or held by virtue of such ownership, may not, in the ordinary sense of the term, be immovable property, but is an incorporeal hereditament of a personal nature, yet being by the custom of Hindus classed with immovable property, and so regarded in their law…. …”
