The Calcutta Weekly Notes Law Notes and Notes of Cases of the Calcutta High Court and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and short notes of important decisions of other High Courts in India Monday September 2 1935

The observation of Buckland A. C. J. on the matter of dates is that “at the time the notice of the scheme of the proposed meeing was given the Petitioners had ceased to be depositors.” In the case before Mr. [...] 241 347 the Privy Council in an unguarded moment observed that in the case of a family idol the consensus of the whole family might give the estate a different direction." The above observtion was not necessary for the decision of the case then before the Board and it has not been taken as the considered opinion of the Privy Council on the point. [...] But the division of the idol's property amongst the members of the fouder's family if allowed is quite a different thing from the disposal of the idol's property by the shebait for the time being for his own benefit or for the payment of debts incurred by him for his private purposes. [...] The remedy lies in the Courts insisting on the separate representation of the idol in every case where the idol's property is in any way concerned unless the Court is satified that the shebait for the time being fully and satisfactorily represents the idol; in the second place a special officer should be apointed to represent the idol where such separate representation is thought necesar [...] 22 an estate can in the first instance be represented in any suit by some of the heirs entitled thereto in the absence of other heirs the prepondeance of authority is in favour of the view that in the absence of fraud or collusion the representation by some of the heirs will be sufficient representation.