1. Dispute over whether a place of worship constitutes a temple under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, following a declaration by the Board of Commissioners. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 411
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st December, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy of Bondilipuram and another, Appellants
Versus
Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1959.
advocates appeared
Mr. T.V.R. Tatachari, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. Bhimasankaram, Senior Advocate (M/s. K. R. Chaudhuri and T. M. Sen, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
BHIMASANKARA, K.R.CHAUDHARY, T.M.SEN, T.V.R.TATACHARI
BHIMASANKARA, K.R.CHAUDHARY, T.M.SEN, T.V.R.TATACHARI
A place of worship is not a "temple" under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act if it is established for private worship and the endowments were granted for personal maintenance and charity, thereby rebutting the presumption of its public nature.
Headnote:(A) Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 - Section 9(12) - Definition of "Temple" - A place is considered a temple under the Act if it satisfies two conditions: it must be a place of public religious worship and it must be dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community, or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship. (Para 8)
(B) Presumption of Public Nature of Temples - The presumption that temples and their endowments are public charitable trusts is rebuttable. The strength of this presumption may be diminished based on the geographical location of the temple, particularly when situated near the boundaries of different jurisdictions where such presumptions may not uniformly apply. (Para 34)
(C) Evidentiary Value of Inam Registers - While Inam Registers carry significant evidentiary value in the absence of original grants, entries in specific columns cannot be accepted at face value. They must be interpreted in light of other recorded facts within the entry and the historical context of the grants. (Paras 13, 24)
Facts of the case:
An institution was established for the distribution of charities to ascetics and for offering prayers for the stability of the state, supported by various land grants. A temple was subsequently constructed by the head of the institution for private worship. The regulatory board declared the place of worship as a public temple under the relevant Act. The District Judge held that it was a private temple, but the High Court reversed this decision, relying on Inam registers and the presence of public features such as festivals, pilgrims, and scheduled worship.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the original grants were made for the maintenance of the head of the institution and for charitable purposes, not for the temple. The temple was an adjunct to the institution and was used for private worship. The references to "divine service" in the grants referred to prayers for the state's stability rather than public religious worship. The Inam register entries mentioning the temple were likely based on the temple's existence at the time of the inquiry rather than the original purpose of the grants.
Issues: Whether the institution in question constitutes a "temple" as defined under Section 9(12) of the Act, specifically whether it is a place of public religious worship used as of right by the Hindu community.
Ratio Decidendi: For an institution to be a "temple" under the Act, it must be a place of public religious worship dedicated to or used as of right by the Hindu community. Where evidence establishes that grants were for personal maintenance and charity, and the temple was a later addition for private worship, the presumption of it being a public temple is rebutted. (Paras 8, 35)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the institution is a private place of worship for the head of a charity or a public temple dedicated to the Hindu community. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Analysis of historical grants and Inam registers indicates endowments were for the charity head, and the temple was a private adjunct built later. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
4. A temple under the Act must be a place of public religious worship dedicated to, for the benefit of, or used as of right by the Hindu community. (Para 8 )
5. What constitutes a temple under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926?
A temple is defined as a place used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof. (Para 8 )
6. What is the evidentiary value of Inam Registers in determining the nature of a religious endowment?
Inam Registers carry significant weight as historical records, especially when original grants are missing, but specific entries must be scrutinized against other recorded facts rather than accepted at face value. (Para 13 , 24 )
Judgment
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, against the judgment and order of the High Court reversing the judgment and order of the District Judge, Vizagapatam, holding that the place of worship in suit was not a temple as defined in the MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT , 1926 (Madras Act II of 1927), hereinafter called the Act.
2. On March 28, 1947, the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras, held the institution in suit to be a temple as defined in the Act. The appellants, thereafter, filed a petition under S. 84(2) of the Act, in the Court of the District Judge, Vizagapatam, and prayed for the setting aside of the order of the Board. They alleged that the institution known as the Poohari Fakir Sadvarthy, at Bondilipuram, Chicacole, a long-standing institution, was started by one Malukdas Bavajee, some time during the reign of the Moghul Emperor, Aurangazeb. The Emperor, in recognition of the Bavajee s piety and devotion to God, made certain grants to him with the object and purpose of enabling him to maintain himself and carry on the distribution of Sadavarthi to Fakirs and Sadbus and to pray to God for the prosperity of the Empire and the Emperor, according to what was stated in the well-known historical works like Bhakthamala by Maharaja Raghunadha Singh Deo of Rewa.
3. The institution flourished and continues up to this day. The original plaintiff No.2, Rajaram Das Bavajee, was the ninth in succession from the founder Malukdas Bavajee. He died during the pendency of the proceedings and is now represented by appellant No.2, Mahant Gangaram Das Bavajee. Sithaldas Bavajee, the sixth head of the institution who lived in the first half of the Nineteenth Century, built a temple and installed therein certain idols for his private worship. The shrine was an adjunct of the institution Poohari Fakir Sadavarthi. It is alleged to be a private temple known as Jagannadhaswami temple, Balaga, and is meant for the worship of the Mahant and his disciple, one of whom conducts the daily worship.
4. The income from the various properties granted to Malukdas Bavajee or his successors had been regularly utilised for the maintenance of the head of the institution and for distributing charities to the sadhus and pilgrims passing through Balaga. A part of the Income was, however, spent on the expenses of the worship in the temple and the incidental expenses connected with it.
5. The respondent Board denied that Jagannadhaswami temple was a private place of worship, that the public had no access to it without the permission of the Bavajee an alleged that the temple possessed all the features of a place of public religious worship and was dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community as a place of religious worship.
6. The appellants examind five witnesses including plaintiff No. 2, in support of their case. The respondent examined one witness. The plaintiffs also filed a number of documents. The respondent filed a few documents which included the Board s order dated March 28,1947, and its enclosure.
7. The learned District Judge concluded, from the evidence, that Jagannadhaswami temple was not a temple as defined in the Act, it being a private temple existing for the benefit of the appellants only. He therefore set aside the impugned order of the Board. On appeal, High Court came to a different conclusion and allowed the appeal. It mainly relied on the entries in the Inam registers with respect to the institution and on the following facts which it considered to be established :
(i) the temple is a very old temple constructed in or about the year 1750;
(ii) the temple has the structure and polity of a public temple;
(iii) there are utsava vigrahams and vahanams;
(iv) it has a big compound wall with the gate opening into the Chinna Bazaar Road;
(v) regular worship is performed every day at the scheduled time;
(vi) ther
