1. This appeal arises out of a suit for rent. Various defences were raised, and the Court of first instance dismissed the suit. On appeal, that decree was confirmed, but on the ground that the suit was brought by the plaintiff, to he was a shebait of an idol to whom the property had been dedicated by a Will by the plaintiff's mother, without adding the idol as a party. But the plaintiff as shebait was entitled to maintain the suit. As pointed out by the Judicial Committee in the case of Jagadindra Nath Roy v. Hemanta Kurnari Debi 32 C. 129 (P.C ) : 7 Bom. L.R. 765 : 8 C.W.N. 809 : 1 A.L.J. 585 : 31 I.A. 203, the possession and management of the dedicated property belong to the shebait. And this carries with it the right to bring whatever suits are necessary for the protection of the property. Every such right of suit is vested in the shebait, not in the idol.'
2. The plaintiff in the present case expressly stated in the first paragraph of his plaint that under a Will executed by his mother the property together with arrears of rent are owned by Ishwar Radha Madhab Deb Tbakur as malik and held by the plaintiff as shebait, although it was not so described in the cause-title.
3. We think, therefore, that the decree of the lower Appellate Court must be set aside and the case sent back to that Court in order that the appeal may be decided by that Court according to law.
4. Costs of this appeal will abide the result.