The character of a temple as public or private is determined by its use for public worship and community management, not solely by registration status.

ORDER :

(Parth Prateem Sahu, J.)

1. The appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 questioning the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.03.2022 passed by the learned 4^th Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara in Civil Appeal No. 27-A/2018 whereby, the learned Trial Court dismissed the appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

2. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law (order dated 16.12.2022)

“Whether findings of both the Courts below holding that the temple is a public trust is perverse.”

3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for deleting the name of Manager/Collector from the lands mentioned in Para 2 of the plaint, declaration of title, permanent injunction inter alia on the pleading therein that Shri Ram Janaki Raman Temple, Shri Thakurji Temple, Shri Ram Laxman Janaki Temple, Shri Hanuman Temple was constructed by Smt. Sarjawati Bai W/o. Late Diwan Bahadurji Agrawal along with other relatives, at Lalbandha Talab, Arjuni, Tehsil- Balodabazar in the year around 1972. From time to time, relatives of Smt. Sarjawati Bai have donated the agricultural land situated at Village Hathi Khairtala and Village Arjuni details of which are mentioned in Paragraph No. 2 of plaint. The aforementioned temples are private temples and the Sarvarkar of the aforementioned temples were engaged by the donators and as of now, Manager and Sarvakara is Chandrika Prasad Sharma.

4. It is pleaded that according to the circular/memo issued by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, temples constructed over the government land (only for temples), the Collectors were appointed as Manager under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act , 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1951) and based on the said circular, the name of the Collector is also added as Manager without the knowledge of plaintiff. The temples are not public temples under the Act, 1951. It is also pleaded that the agricultural lands donated to the temples were managed by Chandrika Prasad Sharma (Sarwarakar). It was being given by the Sarwarakar to Defendant No. 3 Punit Ram Sharma on lease and the Defendant No. 3 is doing the agricultural activities on behalf of the temple. Under the influence of the Defendants No. 5 & 6, the Defendant No. 4 along with other villagers is causing interference and managing the affairs of the temple.

5. The Defendants No. 3 to 6 submitted written statement to the suit filed by the plaintiff pleading therein that the aforementioned temples were constructed for worship of the general public and it was devoted to the general public and since then, the Village Panchayat Arjuni and the residents of that panchayat were taking care and managing the affairs of the temple. Respondent No. 2/Collector, Raipur is appointed as manager of the temples and from which, it is apparent that the plaintiff temple is not private, but pubic temple. It is also pleaded that the husband of Late Smt. Sarjawati Bai i.e. Late Shri Rajbahadur Dau Kalyan Singh was Zameendar of many villages and his zamindari is known as “Tarenga Raj” . Late Shri Rajbahadur Dau Kalyan Singh and late Smt. Sarjawati Bai were issue less. During his lifetime, late Shri Rajbahadur Dau Kalyan Singh has constructed many Dharamshalas, Hospitals, ponds and temples for the benefit of general public including Kalyansagar Talab, Jankinandani Dharamshala at Bhatapara, D.K.S. Hospital at Raipur and donated hundreds of acres of land to Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Raipur of Village Sendhri, Khapradih, Bhorsi, Rajadhar and Kalmidih. Similarly, Late Smt. Sarjawati has also donated the dieties of the plaintiff temple. She died about 30 years ago.

6. It is also pleaded that apart from the properties mentioned in Para 2, one land bearing Khasra No 778/2, area 1.117 he