Mahant Parichchan Das Vs. The Bihar
State Board of Religious Trusts & Ors [1979] INSC 228 (6 November 1979)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA
(J) SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
CITATION: 1980 AIR 514
ACT:
Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1951 (1 of
1951)- Trust of a public or private nature-Tests.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant (plaintiff) the present Mahant,
filed a suit for a declaration that the plaint-schedule properties were his
personal properties and that there was no trust of a religious or public nature
so as to attract the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act 1951. It
was contended in the suit that one G constructed a temple on his own land in
the village, installed deities, performed puja and raj-bhog till his death,
that the public had no concern with the idols and that after his death he was
succeeded by his son who became a bairagi. Apart from the properties left by
him, his son also acquired other properties. On the son's death he was
succeeded by his Chela who became a Mahant.
Each succeeding Mahant was succeeded by his
Chela.
Properties were acquired by the respective
Mahants in their own name and treated as their personal properties. One of the
Mahants constructed a temple in a nearby village where he installed deities and
performed puja and raj-bhog. It was claimed that the temple and the properties
were the private properties of the Mahant and the public did not have any
interest or right in them. The suit was contested by respondent No. 1,
contending that the temples and the properties were not the private properties
of the Mahant and that they belonged to a Hindu Religious Trust to which the
provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1951 were applicable. The
Trial Court dismissed the suit and its decree was confirmed by the High Court.
In the appeal to this Court, the question was
whether the plaint-schedule properties were properties in respect of which
there was a trust of a public or religious nature so as to attract the
provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1951.
HELD: 1. The High Court was right in holding
that there was a trust of a public nature. [1130B]
2. The fact that members of the public were
permitted to go to the temple without any hinderance might not be a
circumstance which by itself would conclusively establish that the temple was a
public temple in the absence of an element of right in the user of the temple
by the public.
Conversely the free use of the properties of
the temple by the Mahant at a time when he was the sole manager of the temple
and its properties would not necessarily lead to the inference that the temple
was not a public temple. [1129E]
3. There can be no simple or conclusive
factual test to determine the character of a trust. The totality of the
circumstances and their effect must be considered. [1129F] In the instant case
not only were the members of the public allowed free access to the temple, but
they were evincing much greater interest in the insti- 1126 tution as several
villagers had made gifts of land to it, a circumstance which would ordinarily
be consistent with the nature of the institution being public and not private.
4. The situation of the temple would be an
important circumstance in determining whether it was private or public. [1129G]
Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar [1956] S.C.R. 756 referred to.
In the instant case the High Court had
pointed out that the temple was constructed outside the village on open land
between two villages so as to be convenient to the villagers of both the
villages. It was constructed on a high platform and was open on all sides with
plenty of space around it, so as to attract and accommodate large number of
villagers from two villages. This indicated that the trust was of a public
nature. [1129H-1130A]
5. The donation of land by members of the
public to the institution and location of the temple at a place freely
accessible and convenient to the public were circumstances which indicated that
the trust was of a public nature.
[1130B] Bihar State Board Religious Trust,
Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das,[1971] 3 S.C.R. 680, distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 2582 of 1969.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 12-12-1961
of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 50/57.
B. P. Singh for the Appellant.
D. Gobardhan for Respondents 1-2.
U. P. Singh for Respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-The only question for consideration in this appeal is
whether the plaint-schedule properties are properties in respect of which there
is a trust of a public or religious nature so as to attract the provisions of
Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act (Act I of 1951). The plaintiff- appellant
filed the suit out of which the appeal arises for a declaration that the
properties were his personal properties and that there was no trust of a
religious or public nature so as to attract the provisions of the Bihar Act I
of 1951. His case, as set out in the plaint, was that one Gurdyal Singh
constructed a temple on his own land in the village of Dumri and installed the
deities of Ramji, Lakshmanji and Sitaji in the temple. He used to perform puja
and raj-bhog till his death. The public had no concern with the idols. After
his death he was succeeded by his son Gulab Singh who became a bairagi assuming
the name of Gulab Das.
Apart from the properties left by Gurdyal
Singh, Gulab Das also acquired other properties. On his death he was succeeded
by his Chela Brahmdas who 1127 in turn was succeeded by his Chela Dwarika Das.
Each succeeding Mahant was succeeded by his Chela, the present Mahant being the
plaintiff-appellant. Properties were acquired by the respective Mahants in
their own individual names and were always treated as their personal
properties.
Brahmdas constructed a temple in the village
of Maudehin were also he installed the deities of Ramji, Lakshmanji and Sitaji
and used to perform puja and raj-bhog. The temple and the properties were the
private properties of the Mahant and the public did not have any interest or
right in them. The suit was contested by the Bihar State Board of Religious
Trusts and others who pleaded that the temples and the properties were not the
private properties of the Mahant and that they belonged to a Hindu Religious
Trusts to which the provisions of the Bihar Religious Trusts Act were
applicable. The suit was dismissed by the Additional Sub Judge of Muzaffarpur
and the decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the High Court of Patna.
Shri B. P. Singh, learned counsel for the
appellant- plaintiff accepted the several findings arrived at by the High Court
on various evidential matters and argued that even on those findings it could
not be held that the properties belonged to a Trust of a religious or public
nature. He invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Bihar State
Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das,(1) and submitted that
on almost identical facts it had been held in that case that there was no trust
for religious or public purposes.
In Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna
v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das,(1) the facts found by the High Court as summarized
by this Court were:
"(1) that the temple was constructed by
Gaibi Ramdasji and it was he who installed the deities therein;
(2) that he was succeeded to the mahantship
by his chela, and thereafter succession to the mahantship had been from guru to
chela;
(3) that the appointment of a successor has
been all through-out from guru to chela, the reigning mahant appointing or
nominating his successor from amongst his chelas and the members of the public
have had at no time any voice in the selection or nomination;
(4) that the properties have always been
recorded in the names of the mahants as proprietors and not in the name of the
deities in the D registers, Khewats and Khatians;
1128 (5) that the mahants have been in
possession and management of the asthal and the properties all throughout;
(6) that the mahants acquired properties from
time to time in their own names as proprietors and never in the names of the
deities or the asthal, without any objection at any time from any one and dealt
with some of them through deeds of sales, mortgages, leases etc." Before
this Court reliance was placed on the following circumstances to prove that the
properties were impressed with a trust for religious or public purposes:
"(1) the fact that the mahants were
vaishnav bairagis who were life long celibates;
(2) that sadhus and others were given food
and shelter when they visited the temple;
(3) that festivals and other important Hindu
dates used to be celebrated;
(4) that the members of the public came to
the temple for darshan without any hindrance and as of right;
(5) that in the deeds and wills, whereby
reigning mahants appointed or nominated their successors, the properties were
described as appertaining to the asthal, and that the temple being the dominant
part of the asthal and maintained for the worship and puja of the presiding
deities installed therein, the properties belonged to the temple, and therefore,
they were properties of a trust for religious and charitable character.
(6) The idols were installed partly on a
pedestal and the temple was constructed on grounds separate from the
residential quarters of the Mahant".
It was held by this Court that everyone of
the circumstances was equally consistent with the character of the trust being
public or private and that the onus which was on the Bihar State Religious
Trust Board to establish the public nature of the trust had not been
discharged.
In view of the submissions of the learned
counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the findings of the High
Court in the present case. The High Court found that there was no evidence to
show who the founder of the Mutt was and who built the temples.
1129 It was also found that there was no
evidence to show that the temple in the village of Dumri was constructed on the
land belonging to Gurdyal Singh or that the temple in the village of Maudah was
constructed on land belonging to Brahmdas. It was found that several properties
were acquired by various Mahants in their names instead of in the names of the
idols but the acquisition of properties was for the purposes of the Asthal or
Mutt. It was also found that from time to time gifts of land had been made by
the villagers of Dumri. It was found that the Mahants had executed Kebalas for
effecting repairs of the temples and had similarly executed deeds of mortgage.
It was found that the people of the villages of Dumri and Maudah used to visit
the temple without any let or hinderance and that the Mutt was so located as to
suit the convenience of the villagers of both Dumri and Harpur. It was situated
on the boundary of the two villages and was on a platform at a certain height,
open on all sides with plenty of space around it. The temple in the Mutt had
three doors with space for visitors. It was noticed by the High Court that the
lands were held rent free in consideration of religious services.
It is true as submitted by the learned counsel;
many of the circumstances are neutral. The fact that members of the public were
permitted to go to the temple without any hindrance might not be a circumstance
which by itself would conclusively establish that the temple was a public
temple in the absence of an element of right in the user of the temple by the
public. Conversely the free use of the properties of the temple by the Mahant
at a time when he was the sole manager of the temple and its properties would
not necessarily lead to the inference that the temple was not a public temple.
Patently there can be no simple or conclusive factual tests to determine the
character of a trust. The totality of the circumstances and their effect must
be considered. Here not only do we find that members of the public were allowed
free access to the temple, they were evincing much greater interest in the
institution as evidenced by the circumstances that several villagers had made
gifts of land to it, a circumstance which would ordinarily be consistent with
the nature of the institution being public and not private. Again, as pointed
out by Venkatarama Ayyar, J., Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar,(1) the situation of
the temple would be an important circumstance in determining whether it was
private or public. The High Court has pointed out that the temple was
constructed outside the village on open land between the villages of Dumri and
Harpur so as to be convenient to the villagers of both the villages. It was
constructed on a high platform and was open on all sides with 1130 plenty or
space around it to accommodate large number of people. Obviously the temple was
located and constructed so as to attract and accommodate large number of
villagers from the two villages. The donation of land by members of the public
to the institution and the location of the temple at a place freely accessable
and convenient to the public were circumstances which were absent in Bihar
State Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das (supra).
We are satisfied that, in the circumstances
the High Court was right in holding that there was a trust of a public nature.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.
Back
