JUDGMENT

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 1 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 1 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 rag-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 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 Maudahin where also he installed the deities of Ramji, Lakshmanji and Sitaji and used to perform puja and rag-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 Trust to which the provisions of the Bihar Religious Trust 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.

2. 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. Sri Biseshwar Das, (1971) 3 SCR 680 at pp. 686-687 and submitted that on almost identical facts it had been held in that case that there was no trust for religious or public purpses.

3. In Bihar State Board religious Trust, Patna v. Sri Biseshwar Das, the facts found by the High Court as summarised 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 throughout 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;

(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 anyone 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 p