History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v3.c44.73.2

v3.c44.73.2

From this it follows that all those rules that apply to a gift to a human being do not apply to a property dedicated to an idol. Medhātithi²¹⁰⁴ (on Manu XI. 26 and II. 189) points out that images cannot be said to be owners in the literal sense, but only in a secondary or ideal sense, since the idol in a shrine cannot use the property at its will nor can it safeguard it and ownership consists in being able to use the thing owned as one desires and in being able to preserve it. In modern times courts in India have laid down that an idol is a juridical person capable of holding property, though from the vary nature of the case the possession and management of the property rests with a manager or a trustee. A maṭha is in the same position as an idol. The rights of the idol or of the maṭha can be safeguarded and vindicated in a court of law only by the manager or trustee of the temple or by the head (called mohunt) of the maṭha.²¹⁰⁵ Vide *Bhupati Nath v. Ram Lal* 37 Cal. 128 (F. B.) at pp. 145–153 where Mr. Justice Mukerji examines at length passages of Śabara, Medhātithi, the Dāyabhāga and its commentators to explain what is meant by a gift to an idol according to the notions of the Hindu writers. Manu and other smṛtikāras lay down that it is part of the king's duty to prosecute and fine persons interfering with or destroying the property of temples. Yāj. II.