The nature of a Debuttar property, whether private or public, is determined by considering various criteria, including the intention of the founder, the manner of vesting of management, and the place of installation of the idol.

S.K. Mookherjee, J. : These two Second Appeals are directed against Title Appeals No. 773 and 974 of 1978, arising out of Title Suit No. 334 on 1970 and Title Suit No. 5 of 1973. The Suits and the Appeals, in the Courts below, were heard analogously and the Second Appeals also were heard analogously by me.

2. The common dispute in the Suits relates to a Debuttar property at Baduria. Suit No. 334 of 1970 is, inter alia, for declaration of shebaitship of the plaintiffs, who are respondents in the present Second Appeals, and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from acting as the priest and entering into the temple. The other Suit, namely, Title Suit No. 5 of 1973, had been instituted in representative character, inter alia, with prayer that the Debuttar in dispute was a public Debuttar, being managed by a Mandir Committee, and that the plaintiffs, in the earlier instituted Suit, were not the shebaits of the deities, defendant No.1, Gobinda was such shebait. In the latter Suit there was a prayer for permanent injunction, restraining the plaintiffs in the earlier Suit, who were impleaded as defendants in the latter Suit, from creating obstruction to the shebapuja of the deities by Gobinda.

3. The Trial Court, by its judgements and decrees, dismissed the earlier Suit and decreed the latter Suit. In First Appeals, arising out of the said suits both the decrees of the Trial Court had been reversed.

4. The instant Second Appeals have been preferred against such decrees of reversal.

5. The sole question, on determination of which the fate of the present Second Appeals depends, is about the nature of the Debuttar in dispute, namely, whether it is a private or a public Debuttar. Different judicial pronouncements, including those by this High Court, the privy Council as also of the Apex Court of the country, have laid down different criteria, on the application of which to the facts of each particular case such a question is required to' be answered, though the decisions have unequivocally expressed that there cannot be any straight jacket formula but totality of circumstances have to be taken into consideration for arriving at the correct conclusion about the nature of the debuttar in question in each particular case.

6. In the case of Deoki Nandan vs. Murlidhar and Ors., reported in AIR 1957 SC 133, the nature and character of the beneficiaries have been accepted as tests for determining whether the Debuttar is a public or a private one. In the case of a private Debuttar, specific Individuals, who are ascertainable, are the beneficiaries, whereas in the case of a public Debuttar, such beneficiaries are neither specific nor ascertainable but comprise general public. In a simpler form the same can be found out by finding out the intention of the founder as to whether specified individuals or the general public or any specified portion thereof has the right of worshipping the deity or idol the second criterion, which has been judicially accepted, is the manner of vesting of the management of the Debuttar in a body of strangers or in one in the family. In the former case, it can be presumed that the right of worship was intended to be made available to the strangers or to the general public and thus the character of the Debuttar would be of a public nature. Thirdly, the place of installation of the idol has also been stated to be a guiding factor, particularly, in the context of absence of any temple in the locality or near about in the matter of ascertainment of the intention of the founder. Temporary restrictions or regulations of the user by public do not take away or interfere with the character of the Debuttar as a public one but are taken as normal incidents of such Debuttar. In the case of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (Patna) vs. Mahanth Sri Bishweswar Das, reported in AIR 1971 SC 2057, the Apex Court has clarified that the determination of the character of Debuttar, on the application of the afores