Important Points
1. A Society can be registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act 21 of 1860) for religious purposes treating such purposes as part of ‘Charitable purposes’ as mentioned in the preamble and Sections 1 and 20 of the abovesaid Act.
2. Oral evidence could be adduced to show that the recitals in a deed were nominal or were not intended to be acted upon or that they were not meant to alter the existing state of affairs.

Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-These three Civil appeals arise out of the same judgment of the High Court and can be disposed of together. Civil Appeal No. 2546 of 1992 has been filed by the ‘Hindu Public’ through their representative Sri K.C. Malla, Advocate Bhubaneshwar, Orissa. The said Advocate also figures as the 2nd appellant. Civil Appeal Nos. 2547-48 of 1992 have been filed by Rajdhani Puja Samithee (hereinafter called the ‘Society’), on behalf of itself and also representing appellants Nos. 2 to 4, the Deities Sri Bhubaneswar, Sri Bhubaneswari and Sri Hanuman.

2. The following are the facts:

In 1949, a group of persons started Durga Puja, Laxmi and Kali Puja and related festivals in Bhubaneshwar near the Raj Mahal Chhat. Later, at any rate from 1955, these religious festivals and pujas were shift­ed to an open place belonging to Government, opposite to the Market building. In that year, an informal Committee came into being. Dona­tions were being received for the aforesaid purposes from public as is clear from Exhibit F. With a view to have a permanent place for these pujas, a group of persons from among the organisers of these festivals and pujas, formed into the Durga Puja Samithee and registered it as a Society on 21.1.1960 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act 21 of 1860) with a Memorandum of Association which included cultural and other activities also besides religious activities. The Society then applied to the Government of Orissa for grant of land for con­ducting these pujas and religious festivals. Government of Orissa granted a lease on 17.9.1960 at Rs. 1 as rent. Initially the lease was for 30 years but it was later extended for over a period of 90 years. In 1977, a part of the land was acquired for road widening but another piece of equal area was granted under a deed Exhibit 5 dated 8.11.1977. In 1965, construction of the Durga Mandap took place on the leasehold property. During 1969-1970, shop rooms were constructed and in the same year temples for Hanuman, Radha Kishan, Durga etc. were constructed. During this period, an appeal (Ext.F) was issued to the public to contribute generously for the deities and the temples. That appeal refers to the religious activities right from 1949. According to the appellants, this Appeal to the public clinchingly proves that the entire leasehold land was intended to be and was used as a reli­gious endowment. In 1973, it is said that a Puja Mandap was construct­ed. On 28.5.1974 as per Ex.A, printed annual report for the years 1973 and 1974 was approved at the General Body Meeting. The members of the Society were then 67. According to the ‘Hindu Public’, this Report also confirmed the public nature of the temples and other construc­tions on the leased land.

3. At that stage disputes arose between the members of the Society. The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, issued notice on 27.1.1978 to the Society, to produce records in connection with the temple. On 4.5.1978, the Vice President of the Society was asked to appear before the authority with records failing which non hereditary trustees under Section 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) would be appointed. On 27.5.78, the Society informed him that there was no deity, either Radha Krishan or Durga installed in the premises. On 2.6.78, Deities of Sri Bhubhaneswar and Bhubaneswari were installed in the constructed temples 1 and 2. On 2.8.1978, the Assistant Commissioner issued notice (Ext. 25) directing the Endowments Inspector to inspect the premises and submit a report.

4. At that stage, on 30.9.78, the Governing Body is said to have amended the byelaws (as per Ex. 2A) with the object of preventing the Endowment Department from interfering with the Society. On 29.10.78, the Society’s Secretary wrote a letter to the Commissioner, HRE deny­ing that the institution was a religious institution.

5. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 12.1.1979 app