The determination of whether a temple is public or private depends on factors such as the existence of an endowment or trust, the participation of the public in the temple's festivals and ceremonies, and the appointment and removal of the priest.

Defendants 1 to 4 have challenged the correctness of the judgment and decree passed against them by the learned District Judge, Cachar at Silchar by which he upheld the decision of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 2, Cachar. The suit was for khas possession of the land described in the schedule of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, they were the owners of the suit property over which the temple is situated. According to them, the temple was constructed more than a hundred year ago, and defendant No. 2 was initially appointed as the priest. As he indulged in corrupt practices, he was removed and one Hari Mohan discharged the duties of the priest for about 20 years. But Hari Mohan having left for Upper Assam, defendant No. 1 was requested to worship the diety. One of the service conditions was that defendant No. 1 would live in a house described in Schedule-II. After this defendant also took recourse to corrupt and immoral practices, and so he was removed from service and was asked to hand-over possession of the house on Schedule-II land. On his failure to do so, the present suit was filed by stating that defendants 5 to 11 are accomplices of defen­dants 1 to 4. These averments were denied by the defendants, though defendants 5 to 12 accepted that they had no right over the said temple or the land. The trial court accepted the case of the plaintiffs on being satisfied about their title inter alia because of a number of documents to sustain their claim. The learned District Judge has agreed with this finding.

2. The only point urged before me on behalf of the appellants is that the temple in question has to be regarded as a public temple as such defendant No. 1 was not removable by the plaintiffs. Shri Choudhuri has referred to a number of decisions to bring home the difference between "a public trust" and "a private trust". At first, is is emphasised that for creating an endowment no writing is necessary. Reference is made, in this connection, to the Tagore Law Lectures of B. K. Mukherjee's on "Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts". It is stated at page 105 of 4th Edition that the essential formalities for the creation of a religious or charitable endowment according to Hindu Law are : (1) the property in respect of which the endowment is made must be designated with precision; (2) the object or purpose of dediction should be clearly indicated, and (3) the founder must effectively divest himself of all beneficial interests in the endowed property. So far as these aspects are concerned, it is enough to say that there is absolutely nothing to satisfy any of these essentials in as much as nobody has specifically stated about any endowment or the purpose thereof or divesting of beneficial interests by the founder. Shri Choudhury, however, presses into service the decision in the Commissioner for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore vs. Shri Ratnavarma Heggade, (1977) 1 SCC 525, which has held that in many cases a dedica­tion or endowment of property for a particular purpose has to be inferred from immemorial user of a property in a particular manner or from the conduct of a party". (See para 49). In Paragraph 55 it has been stated that such dedication may be implied from user permitted for public and religious purposes for sufficient length of time. The conduct of the property owner and other circumstances are taken into account in arriving at the inference of such a dedication. Reference is also made to Deoki Nandan vs. Murlidhar, AIR 1957 SC 133 wherein it was stated that 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 general public or a class thereof. An endowment his, therefore, to be held to be private or public as per this rendering, keeping in view the fact whether the beneficiaries thereunder are specific persons or the general public or sections thereof. I am also referred to Narayan vs. Go

Click Here to Read the rest of this document