The distinction between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter, they are the general public or a class thereof.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (for short the Board) against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Samastipur, dated the 10th July, 1973 reversing the decision of the court of first instance. The suit was for a declaration that the temple of Sri Ram Laxman and Jankiji with the properties dedicated to it under deed of Samarpannama dated the 28th November, 1916 (Ext. 4) was a private trust and not a public one, and also for permanent injunction restraining the Board from interfering with the administration of the trust property by the plaintiff. The temple is located in village Harpur-Purandar alias Keota within Dalsinghsarai police station in the District of Samastipur. The dispute occurred when the Board tried to enforce the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act 1 of 1951 (briefly the Act) by serving a notice upon the plaintiff-respondent to submit return and continued to interfere even thereafter.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that his father Chhatradhari Choudhary who was a great devotee of the aforesaid deities had a desire to construct a temple for installing the above named deities and to endow some properties for their Raibhog and he, therefore, started construction of the temple, but unfortunately he died. After his death, the plaintiff and other members of his family completed the construction. They installed the above deities in the temple. The plaintiff and his brother also executed a deed of Samarpannama dated the 28th of November, 1916 and dedicated some properties for the worship of the above named idols. It is said that the plaintiff was made Manager and trustee of the properties through a separate deed of Managernama dated the 28th of Nov. 1916 (Ext. 5). The plaintiff was since then managing the properties, maintaining idols and repairing the temple honestly. It was also alleged that the endowment was created in favour of the family deities with one of the family members as trustee to be succeeded on death or removal by any other family member. The further case of the plaintiff was that the endowment was for the benefit of the members of the family and the temple had been constructed just in front of their residential house with a view that all the members may regularly visit the temple for worshipping the deities. It was also asserted that the public had no concern with the temple or its properties and that only members of the family were the real beneficiaries on these allegations the plaintiff prayed in the suit for a declaration that the endowment created by the deed of Samarpannama (Ext. 4) dated the 28th November, 1916 was a private trust and it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Board and for permanent injunction as aforesaid.

3. The appellant Board did not dispute that the temple was constructed by the members of the family of the plaintiff. It took the stand that the deities were not the family idols, that the members of the general public had a right to worship the deities without any obstacle or hindrance and that the people in general and the villagers used to attend celebrations without interference and used to give offerings in cash and kinds and hence the trust was a public one in which the members of the public had interest and to which the Act applied.

4. Both parties led evidence in the case, on a consideration of which the learned Additional Munsif, Samastipur held that it was a public trust and, therefore, it came within the purview of the Act. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, held that the trust was a private one which did not come within the purview of the Act.

5. Thus, the material question which arises in the case is whether the trust is a public trust to which the Act applies or is a private trust which does not come within the purview of the Act. The principles of law for determination of the question whether an endowment is public or private are fairly well settled. This Court observed in Deoki Nandan V/s. Mur