MAHANT PARICHCHAN DAS versus THE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUSTS & ORS.

MAHANT PARICHCHAN DAS

THE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUSTS & ORS.

Novernber 6, 1979

[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]

Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1951 (1 of 1951)-Trust of public '()T private nature-TeSts.

The appellant (plaintiff) the present Mahan!, filed suit for declaration , that the ple .. int-schedule- properties were his personal properties1 and that there was no trust of 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 constructed 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 tho idols and that after his death he was succeeded by his son who became bairagi. Apart from the properties left by him, his son also acquir-•ed other properties. On the son's death he was succeeded by his Chela who •became Mahant. Each succeeding Mahant was succeeded by his Chela. Properties vmre acquired by the respective Mahants in their own name and trela!ted as their personal properties. One of the Mahants constructed temple in a. nearby village where he installed deiti~s 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 Ilot havC any interest or right in them. The suit was contested by respondent No. ·),,.contending tbQt the temples and the properties were not the private properties of the Mahant and that they 'belonged to 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 public' or religious nature so as to attract the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1951.

. HEID : !. The High Court was right in holding that there wai trust of public nature. [1130BJ

2. The fact that members of the public were permitted to go to the temple without any hinderance might not be circumstance which by itself worud conclusively establish that the temple was public temple 'in the absence of an ~lement of right in the user of the temple by the public. Con-versely the free use of the properties of the temple by the Mahant at time when he was the sole. manager of the temple and its properties would not .necessan1y le!ad to the inference that the temple was not public temple. [1129EJ

3. There can be no simple or conclusive factual test to determine the «Character of trust. The totality of the circumstances and their effect must be .considered. [1129FJ ,

In the instant case not only were the members of. the public allowed free access ·to the. temple, but they were evincing much great.er interest in the instl-

tution as several villagers had made gifts of land to it, circumstanct; which would ordinarily be consistent with the nature of the institution being public and not private. [1129F]

4. The situation of the temple woulq be an important circumstance in determining whether it was private -0r public. [1129G]

Deoki Nandan v. Mur/idlzar [1956] S.C.R. 756 refetred to:

In the instant case the High Court had pointed out that the temple was constructed outside the village o:D. open land between two vil}Uoges so as to be convenient to the villagers of both the villages. It was constructed on 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 public nature. [1129H~1130AJ

5. The d.onatioo of land by members of the public to the insti.tution and location of the temple at place freely. l!<cessible and convenient to the pnblio were circumstances which indicated that the trust was of public nature. [1130BJ

Bihar State Board Religiou3 Trust, Patna v. Mahanl Sri Biseshwsr 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 res-pect of which there is trust of public or r~ious 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 a•ises for declaration that the properties were his persoool proper-ties and t.'iat there was no trust of 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 Gurdya.1 Singh constructed temple on his 0\\11 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 be was succeeded by bis son Gulab Singh who became bairagi assuming the name of Gulab Das. Apart from the properties· left by Gurdya\' Singh, Guiab Das also acquired other pro-perties. On his death he was succeeded by his Cbela Brahmdas who

in tum was 1mcceeded 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 Mahaots in their own individual names and were always treated as their personru properties. Brahmdas constructed temple in the village of 0Maudchln where also he installed the deities of Ramji, Lakshmanji nnd Sitaji and used to perform puja and raj-bhog. The temple and the properties were the private properties of the Mahani and the public dH 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 Mahaot and that they belonged to 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 Palna.

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 Trust of religious or public Il'll.!ure. He invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Bihar State Board. Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das,(') and submitted that on almost identical facts it had been_ held in trot case that there was no trust for religious or public purposes.

In IJiliar State Board Religious Tn1st, Patna v. Mtihant Sri Biselhwar !Das,(') the facts found by the High Court as summarised by this. Court were :

"(!) 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 successor has been all through-out from 'f_Uru to chela, the reigning mahant appoint-ing or nominatin~_lhis succ~ssor from amongst his chelas and tlie members of tile public have had at no time any voice in the selection or njimination; ,

( 4) that the properties have always been recorded in the names of the malmnts as proprietors and not in the name of the deities in. the registers, Khewats and Khatians;

II) {1971! 3 S.C.R. 680 at 686, 687 .

(5) that the mahants have been in possession am;! 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 rtames of the deities or. the asthal, without any objection at any time from any one and dealt with some of them through deeds of s~les, mortgages, leases etc."

Before this Court reliance was placed on the following circumstances

to prove that the p~operties were impressed with trust for religious or public purposes :

" ( 1) the fact that the mahants were vaishnav !Joairagis 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. pro-' . perties were described as appertaining to the asthal, and that . the temple being the dominant part of the asthal and main-tained for the worship and puja of the presiding deities instal-led therein, the properties belonged to the temple, and therefore, they were properties of trust for religious and charitable character.

( 6) The idols were installed partly on 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 pri- ' vate and that the onus which was on the Bihar State Religious Trust Board to establish the public nature of the trust had not been dis-charged.

equally consistent with the character of the trust being public or pri- '

In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appel-!ant, it is necessa.ry 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.

[t was also found that there was no evidence to show that the temple fa the village of Dumri was. constructed on the land belonging to Gnr--Oyal Singh. or that the temple in the village of Maudah was constructed ·On l;md belonging to Brahmda/i. It was fourid that several proper-ties were acquired by various Mahants in th_eir names ·instead of in the names of the idols but the acquisition of properties was for the pur-poses 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 platform at 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 crr-.cumstances are neutral. The fact that members of the public were '.JIBrmitted to go to the temple without any hindrance might not be ·circumstance which by itself would conclusively establish that the temple was public temple in the absence of an element of right in the user of the temple by the public. Conversly the free use of the ·properties of the temple by the Mahant at time when he was the sole manager of the temple and its properties would not necesS'ar:ily lead to the inference that the temple was not public temple. Patently there can be no simple or conclusive factual tests to determine the ·character of 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 circumstance that ~everal villagers had made gifts of land to it, 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,(') 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 cons-•tructed 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. [t was constructed onl 'high platform and was open on all sides with

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 place freely accessable and convenient to the public were circumstances which were absent in Bihar State Board-B Religious Trust, Pllfna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das (supra). We are satisfted that, in the circum~tances the High Court was right in holding that there was ,a trust of public nature. The oappeal is,. therefore, dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed<.