Fletcher and Cuming, JJ.
1. This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned District Judge of Rangpur dated the 29th January, 1917, reversing the decision of the Second Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover possession of certain lands on declaration of title. The plaintiff alleged that he had purchased the property under two deeds. Now, the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below found that the property was debuttar, that the plaintiff's vendor was the shebait and that there was no legal necessity for the alienations. The first point in the case is 'Is the property debuttar'? The document under which, the endowment is said to have been established is before us. It conveys to one Santiram Bairagi the property for the purpose of the sheva of God, and Santiram Bairagi is allowed to enjoy the property from generation to generation. The point that has been urged is that this deed of endowment is void for, uncertainty. It is said that under the Hindu system of law a general endowment for the worship of God without giving the name of the deity for whose benefit the endowment is to take effect is not valid. The case is covered by the decision of Chief, Justice Sir Henry Richards of the Allahabad High Court and Mr. Justice Banerji in the case of Phundan Lal v. Arya Prithi Nidhi Sabha (1911) I.L.R. 33 All. 793. The learned Judges there remarked 'As we have already said, there was no Thakurji and no Thakurdwara, therefore the dedication, was bad on the ground of uncertainty. This case is distinguishable from the case of Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha v. Ram Lal Maitra (1909) I.L.R. 37 Calc. 128, Mohar Singh v. Het Singh (1910) I.L.R. 32 All. 337 and Chatarbhuj v. Chatarjit (1911) I.L.R. 33 All. 253. In all those cases, the gift, was in favour of the deity named in the deed of dedication and it was held that, although the image of the deity had not been installed and consecrated, the endowment was nevertheless valid.' It really comes to this: An application of the ordinary principles of the Court of Equity with reference to the enforcement of a trust. The trust may be executory in form but the person for whose benefit it has got to be enforced must be capable of being ascertained and, according to these learned Judges, the gifts for the benefit of God without naming the Thakurji is according to the Hindu system void for uncertainty. That seems to us to be right. As far as experience goes, all these endowments are made for the deity and each for a particular thakur and there being no Thakur here indicated for whose benefit the property is to be held, the Court is unable to say for which of the Hindu deities the endower intended that this property should be held. The period of three years during which the rectification could be made has long expired, since the document is dated the 25th Aswin 1136. In that view of the case, the person who transferred the property to the plaintiff apparently had a good title to transfer. We must accordingly set aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, and decree the plaintiff's suit with costs both here and in the Courts below.