1956 Supreme(Cal) 124

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. N. MUKHERJEE, RENUPADA MUKHERJEE
SARAT CHANDRA BHATTACHARJEE - Appellant
Versus
RABINDRA NATH GHOSH - Respondent
A. F. O. D.  168  Of  1950
Decided On : JULY 11, 1956

A public endowment is one which is created for the benefit of the public and is open to the use of the public. The essential indicia of a public endowment are: - Dedication to the public - User by the public - Conduct of the founder and his descendants

Headnote:

GOARI SIDDHESHWARI KALIBARI - PUBLIC TEMPLE - SECTION 92, CIVIL P. C. - SUIT FOR REMOVAL OF SHEBAIT - PUBLIC ENDOWMENT - USER, REPUTE, CONDUCT OF FOUNDER AND DESCENDANTS - INTERPRETATION - PUBLIC CHARACTER OF ENDOWMENT - REMOVAL OF SHEBAIT - MORAL TURPITUDE - IGNOMINY - UNFITNESS - DECREE - TEMPLE AND ADJUNCTS - DEBUTTAR PROPERTIES - NO DISTINCTION.

Fact of the Case:

Suit under Section 92, Civil P. C. read with Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code for removal of the defendant as shebait of the Goari Siddheswari Kalibari. The suit was decreed and the defendant filed an appeal. The dispute relates to the Goari Siddhes-war Kalibari, an ancient institution dating about a century back. The deity Sree Sree Siddhe-swari Kali Thakur appears to have been originally the family deity of a pious Hindu Brahmin Dina-bandhu Chatterjee. It was originally set up and installed in a hut, constructed by Dinabandhu on the northern bank of the river Jalangi, popularly known as Kharia. When the hut was about to be washed away by erosion of the river, Dinabandhu crossed over to Goari on the other side of the river with the deity which was located in the house of the local Government Pleader Babu Ramgopal Mukherjee. Through the efforts of Ramgopal Babu and the then Subordinate Judge of the District, the plot of land, on which the Kalibari now stands, was secured by way of gift from the local zemindars of Juniadaha. The temple was then constructed upon that piece of land and the deity was removed there and duly consecrated and installed.

Finding of the Court:

The disputed Kalibari was a public temple and the defendant was unfit to hold the office of its shebait. The plaintiffs' case of public endowment has been proved even by the defendant's own witnesses and by his and his predecessors' admissions and conduct and, in the facts of this particular case, the conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge appears to be eminently reasonable. The history of the endowment, the circumstances in which the temple and its extensions were built and the deity located there, the manner in which and the means by which its worship was carried on through all these several decades and the public user of the temple and its properties on ceremonial and other occasions and public participation in the management of important temple festivals, all confirm the public character of the endowment and point unmistakably to the fact that, from its inception, the disputed Kalibari was a public temple and the deity was installed in it as a public deity for public worship.

Issues: 1. Whether the disputed Kalibari was a public temple? 2. Whether the defendant was unfit to hold the office of its shebait?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the disputed Kalibari was a public temple based on the following factors: - The temple was built with public money and its extensions were made by members of the local Hindu public with their own funds. - The temple was treated as a place of public worship by the local Municipality and was exempted from assessment on that footing. - Various Bigrahas of the local people used to be kept in the temple and on ceremonial occasions Shalagram shilas used to be taken to private houses from the temple in question and pujas of the local people to Sasthi Devi, Manasha Devi and other Goddesses used to be sent to this temple. - The annual Kali puja and pujas of other Bigrahas, located in the temple, were performed on appropriate and ceremonial occasions with public subscriptions and under public management and even the daily pujas used to be carried on with public offerings. - The Thakur's ornaments and the utensils for Bhog and other purposes were all supplied by the local Hindus and articles of food for the daily sheba puja were also sent and supplied by a local Hindu zemindary estate. - At the request of the local people, the Municipality provided a light near the main gate of the temple and the Kalibari in question is known by repute as the Goari Siddehswari Kalibari which suggests a public character. - Devotees used to place marble tablets in the temple in memory of their deceased relations and they used to do this upon the belief that the Kalibari was a public temple and, for this, no permission had ever to be taken from the defendant. - The defendant and his predecessors used to hold out to the local Hindu public that the disputed temple was a public Hindu temple and raise public subscriptions for its purposes on such representation. 2. The Court held that the defendant was unfit to hold the office of shebait based on the following factors: - The defendant was subjected to ignominy by the local people who had his head shaved by a barbar and had him paraded along the main thoroughfare with a rope round his neck. - The defendant was accused of attempting to outrage the modesty of a female devotee within the precincts of the temple and of immoral character and association.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the decree of the lower court was upheld. The Court directed the removal of the defendant from shebaitship, the framing of a scheme and the appointment of a new shebait.