A Samadhi of a saint can evolve into a temple and become a public trust if it is used as a place of public religious worship by the Hindu community for over a century.

Headnote:
PUBLIC TRUST - RAGHUNATH BHAJI MAHARAJ TEMPLE - BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1950 - SECTION 2(13), 2(17), 18, 19, 72(1) - WHETHER THE TEMPLE AND THE PROPERTIES ARE A PUBLIC TRUST - WHETHER A SAMADHI CAN EVOLVE INTO A TEMPLE - INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITIONS OF "PUBLIC TRUST" AND "TEMPLE" - EVIDENCE OF PUBLIC RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND USAGE.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Bhaskar, claimed that the Raghunath Bhatji Maharaj Temple and the surrounding properties were his private ancestral properties or a private trust. Respondent No. 1, Shankar Ganesh Modak, contended that the temple and properties constituted a public trust, used for public religious worship and functions.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the temple and properties were a public trust, used as a place of public religious worship by the Hindu community for over a century. The court held that the Samadhi of Raghunath Bhatji Maharaj had evolved into a temple, and that the properties surrounding the temple were also part of the public trust.
Issues: 1. Whether the Raghunath Bhatji Maharaj Temple and the surrounding properties were a public trust. 2. Whether a Samadhi can evolve into a temple. 3. Interpretation of the definitions of "public trust" and "temple" under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the temple and properties were a public trust based on the following factors: 1. Overwhelming evidence of public religious worship and usage for over a century. 2. The temple was used as of right by the Hindu community. 3. The temple was dedicated to or for the benefit of the Hindu community. 4. The temple was a place of public religious worship. The court also held that a Samadhi can evolve into a temple, as evidenced by the history of Hindu religion and religious usage, custom, and practices.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the temple and properties were a public trust.

JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This appeal arises out of original proceedings commenced under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter the Act).

2. One Raghunath Bhatji Maharaj, also known as Adwaiteshwar Sachhidanand Saraswati, was a great saint who took Samadhi on the bank of river Godavari at Nasik in the year 1817 on Magh Wadya Chaturdashi, Shake 1739. On this Samadhi, a Shivling was installed. Over this Samadhi and the Shivling, a massive structure was built in stone resembling a temple having a Kalash and Gabhara around the same. In the precinct thereof were constructed a Sabhamandap and Dharmashala by different persons. The Samadhi and the structure built over it and the constructions surrounding the same and in the precincts thereof came to be known as Adwaiteshwar Mandir and Raghunath Bhatji Maharaj Math.

3. The appellant herein made an application under protest under section 18 of the Act. His original contention was that the aforesaid properties were his ancestral private properties. The said stand was given up, contention thereafter being that the said properties constituted a private trust and not a public trust. This was opposed by respondent No. 1 Shankar Ganesh Modak who contended that the Samadhi known as Raghunath Maharaj alias Adwaiteshwar Math and the temple and the building in question were all along used for public religious worship and functions. Raghunath Bhatji Sachhidananad Saraswati had a large spiritual following. After he took Samadhi, a Shivling named as Adwaiteshwar was installed on the Samadhi in 1920 and a big temple of God Shiva was constructed by one Hatu who also provided for daily worship of the Shivling. Subsequently, Sardar Potnis constructed a spacious Sabhamandap to the north of the temple and one Angre constructed a Dharamshala and a Math on the eastern side. Utsavs and festivals were celebrated therein by the public. Public subscriptions were also collected in that behalf. Innumerable devotees have been worshipping there. Several religious functions are also being performed. All this was being done and performed without any permission from anyone. The properties were also exempted from taxation on the ground that they were being used for public religious worship and functions. In all these circumstances, contention of Modak was that these properties constituted a public trust within the meaning of the Act.

4. The Assistant Charity Commissioner who held an inquiry under section 19 of the Act came to the conclusion that Raghunath Bhatji Maharaj Temple was a place of public religious worship; that members of the Hindu community used the same as of right and that the said place was a temple as defined in section 2(1) of the Act. The board of trusteeship of the said trust was held to be hereditary. As regards the other properties, it was held that the structures around the Samadhi and the temple and in the precincts thereof did not belong to the public trust. Order accordingly was passed. Against the order holding the temple to be a public trust, the appellant herein Bhaskar appealed to the Charity Commissioner. And against the order, to the extent it held the other properties not to belong to the public trust and holding the mode of succession to the trusteeship to be hereditary, Modak; respondent No. 1 herein, appealed. Both these appeals were heard together by the Joint Charity Commissioner. He confirmed the finding of the Assistant Charity Commissioner that the temple constituted a public trust within the meaning of the Act and that the Mode of succession to the trusteeship was hereditary. He also further held that the other properties and structures standing around the temple and in the precincts thereof on C.T.S. Nos. 1109 and 1110 were also properties belonging to the public trust. Consistent therewith, the appeal of Modak was allowed and that of Bhaskar dismissed. Bhakar thereupon preferred application under section 72(1) of the Act. The Joint Judge hearing t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document