Judgement

S. K. DAS, J. : This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Patna dated 9-10-1953 in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 181 of 1953 of that Court*. It relates to a temple commonly known as the Baidyanath temple situate in the town of Deoghar within the limits of Santhal Parganas in the State of Bihar.

* See AIR 1954 Pat 262, Bhabhapritananda Ojha v. Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts.

2. For the purposes of this appeal it will be necessary to refer to some earlier litigation about this temple. The history of this temple, it is not disputed, goes back to remote antiquity. According to Hindu tradition referred to in the Siva Purana and Padma Purana, extracts from which, with translations, are given by Dr. Rajendra Lal Mitra in his paper on the Temples of Deoghar (see Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Part 1, 1883, quoted in the Bihar District Gazetteer relating to Santal Parganas, 1938 edition pp. 373-376), the origin of the temple is traced to the Treta Yuga, which was the second age of the world by Hindu mythology. Side by side with Hindu tradition, there is a Santal tradition of the origin of the temple given by Sir William Hunter (see the Annals of Rural Bengal, p. 191; Statistical Account of Bengal Vol. XIV, p. 323). But these materials afford no evidence as to when and by whom the idol was established or the temple was built.

3. The temple sheltering the "lingam" and dedicated to Mahadeva stands in a stone-paved quadrangular courtyard. The courtyard contains eleven other temples, smaller in size and of less importance than that of Baidyanath. Pilgrims visit the temples in large numbers and make offerings of flowers and money in silver or gold; rich people offer horses, cattle, palaquins, gold ornaments and other valuables and sometimes, rent-free land in support of the daily worship. There is a high or chief priest (Sardar Panda) who it appears used to day a fixed rent to the Rajas of Birbhum during the Muhammadan regime, and the administration of the temple was then left entirely in the hands of the high priest. It may be here stated that about 300 families of "pandas", who belong to a branch of Maithil Brahmins, were attached to the temple and earned their livelihood by assisting pilgrims in performing the various ceremonies connected with the worship of the God. When the British rule began, it was decided to take over the management of the temple, and with this object an establishment of priests, collectors and watchmen was organised in 1787 at Government expense. The revenue soon fell off, as the chief priest beset the avenues to the temples with emissaries, who induced the pilgrims to make their offerings before approaching the shrine. (See the District Gazetteer, ibid, p. 383). In 1791 Government relinquished its claim to a share of the offerings and entrusted the management of the temple to the head priest on his executing an agreement to keep the temples in repair and to perform all the usual ceremonies. This agreement was entered into by Ram Dutt the (ancestor of the present respondent), then high priest of the temple, and Mr. Keating who was then Collector of the district. According to Mr. Keating the income of the temple in 1791 consisted of the offerings of the proceeds of 32 villages and 108 bighas of land which he estimated at Rs. 2,000 a year; some years later the total income was estimated at Rs. 25,000 a year. Under the system introduced by the agreement of 1791, the mismanagement of the temple was a source of constant complaint; the temple and "ghats" were frequently out of repair and the high priest was charged with alienating villages from the temple and treating his situation as a means of enriching himself and his family. On the death of the high priest in 1820 a dispute over the succession arose between an uncle and a nephew. The nephew Nityanand was eventually appointed, but neglected to carry out the terms of his appointment. Finally, Nityanand was charged with