Back
A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 2041 of 1972, D/- 11-8-1987.
Pratapsinhji N. Desai, Appellant
Versus
Deputy Charity Commissioner, Gujarat and others, Respondents.
Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 – Section 2(17), 2(13), 19, 72, 72(4) - Temples - Ownership of Temples - Public Trust - Appellant is a former ruler of the semi-jurisdiction State, one of the 17 States which entered into a covenant for formation of United State which on reorganisation of States became part of former State of Bombay and now forms part of State - Management of temples remained throughout with successive ruler of Patadi but that circumstance would not afford an indicia of ownership of temples being vested in rulers - Whether High Court was justified in reversing decision of District Judge, and restoring order of Charity Commissioner, upholding that of Deputy Charity Commissioner, holding that two temples of Sri Dwarkadhishji and Sri Trikamrayji at Patadi were temples as defined in S. 2(17) of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and therefore they fell within purview of expression public trust - Whether temples in question were dedicated to public depends upon inferences which could legitimately be drawn from facts not in dispute and observed that a dedication to public may be inferred from a long course of conduct of founders and descendants - Whether temples had been dedicated to public or were private property of appellant was essentially a matter of inference to be drawn from other facts on record and findings arrived at by High Court as well as Charity Commissioner were clearly unassailable - Whether an endowment made by a private individual is a public endowment or a private one is a mixed question of fact and law and scope of dedication must be determined on application of legal concepts of a public and private endowment to facts found in each particular case - Whether temple was a public temple or a private temple - Whether an endowment is private or public presents no difficulty – Held, Consistent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence to establish that although temples in question were constructed by appellants ancestor but he intended and meant that they were meant for use and benefit of public - That evidence shows that public at large and members of Vaishnava sect had been worshipping at temples as of right for last over 100 years and that temples had all along been primarily maintained by contributions made by public particularly by devotees belonging to Vaishnava sect - In course of time temples particularly Sri Dwarkadhishji Mandir or Haveli attracted a large number of worshippers and they used to participate in religious festivals and ceremonies performed there - Evidence of witnesses also shows that deities were taken out in a palanguin by members of Vaishnava sect and it was joined by general public - Temples though adjacent to Darbargadh were not in precincts of palace but were constructed facing a public road allowing access to general public - All these circumstances clearly support finding reached by Charity Commissioner and High Court that temples were public temples and therefore public religious trusts within the meaning of S. 2(17) read with S. 2(13) of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and temples with properties attached thereto were not private properties of appellant or members of his family - Only factor relied, upon by learned District Judge was that management of temples remained with ruler for time being but then Court has to come to a conclusion not on one single factor alone but on a conspectus of all relevant factors i.e. upon an appreciation of all facts and circumstances appearing - Appeal dismissed.
Judgement
SEN, J. :- This appeal on certificate brought from the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat dated July 3, 1972 raises a question whether the High Court was justified in reversing the decision of the District Judge, Surendranagar dated March 19, 1964 and restoring the order of the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad, State of Gujarat dated February 1, 1962 upholding that of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad holding that the two temples of Sri Dwarkadhishji and Sri Trikamrayji at Patadi were temples as defined in S. 2(17) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and therefore they fell within the purview of the expression public trust within the meaning of S. 2(13) of the Act.
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be shortly stated. The appellant is a former ruler of the semi-jurisdiction State of Patadi, one of the 17 States which entered into a covenant for the formation of the United State of Kathiawad which on the reorganisation of the States became part of the former State of Bombay and now forms part of the State of Gujarat. The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 was extended to the Saurashtra region including the area that formed part of the erstwhile State of Patadi in the year 1952.
3. In Patadi, which was the seat of the former Ruler, there exist two temples known as Sri Dwarkadhishji Mandir or Haveli which is the main temple and adjacent to it there is the smaller temple known as Sri Trikamrayji Mandir. Both these temples were constructed in the years 1872 and 1875 respectively by the then ruler of Patadi and the cost of construction was met from the Patadi State Treasury. The temples are situated on the main road in Patadi and do not form part of the Darbargadh or the palace wherein the ruler and the members of the royal family used to reside, although there exists a passage leading to the public road presumably meant for the use of the ladies of the royal family. In the Gram Panchayat records Sri. Dwarkadhishji Mandir or Haveli stands in the name of the deities and the appellant is merely shown as a Vahivatdar. Similarly, Sri Trikamrayji Mandir is shown as the property of the deities and the appellant as a Vahivatdar. The two temples were exempted from payment of municipal as well as other taxes including the land revenue presumably because they were public temples. This is one of the decisive factors in determining whether a temple is a private or a public one.
4. It appears that the management of the temples remained throughout with the successive ruler of Patadi but that circumstance would not afford an indicia of ownership of the temples being vested in the rulers. On the contrary, the evidence shows that the temples were throughout treated as places of public religious worship and the public in general and members of the Vaishnava sect in particular were regularly worshipping in the temples as a matter of right ever since the installation of the deities and also taking part in the ceremonial festivals like Hindola and Annakut and making cash offerings or bhents, gifts of ornaments etc. The evidence also discloses that nobody was required to take permission from the darbar before entering into the temples for darshan and worship, nor was there any obstruction made at any point of time except after the initiation of the proceedings from the appellant or the manager and/or his servants to the use of the temples by the public as of right. The cash offerings or bhents, gifts of ornaments etc. made by the general public and members of the Vaishnava sect were kept in a golak at Sri Dwarkadhishji Mandir under the exclusive control of the Vaishnava sect and remittances were made to Goswami Maharaj, Acharya of the Vaishnava sect at Ahmedabad.
5. Even after the Act was extended to the erstwhile State of Patadi, the public in general and the members of the Vaishnava sect in particular had unrestricted right of worship at the temples. Sometime in the year 1958 the inhabitants of Patadi made a complaint to t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
