A division bench comprising Justices M Jagannadha Rao and U C Banerjee gave this ruling while dealing with a case under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and said in the `conception of debutter' (rights of god), two essential things were required to be performed.

``In the first place, the property which is dedicated to the deity vests in an ideal sense in the deity itself as a juristic person,'' it said.

``Secondly, the personality of the idol being linked up with natural personality of the sebait (person serving the god), being the manager or being the dharam karta and who is entrusted with the custody of the idol and who is responsible otherwise for preservation of the property of the idol,'' the bench said.

The bench said ``It wascustomary that the image is first carried to the snan mandap (pedestal mean for bath) and thereafter the founder utters the sankalpa mantra and upon completion thereof the image was given bath with holy water, ghee, dahi (curd), honey and rose water.''

``Thereafter the oblation to the sacred fire by which the pran pratistha takes place and the eternal spirit is infused in that particular idol and the image is taken to the temple itself and the same is thereafter formally dedicated to the deity,'' the bench observed.

``A simple piece of wood or stone may become the image or idol and divinity is attributed to the same. As noticed above, it is formless, shapeless but it is the human concept of a particular divine existence which gives it the shape, the size and the colour,'' the bench said.

Setting aside a Patna High Court judgment which had declared one of the deities as fake, the bench said ``what is required is human consecration and in the event of fulfillment of rituals ofconsecration, divinity is presumed; there cannot be any fake deity: Whole concept of Hindu law seems to have been misplaced by the High Court.''