Plaintiff institution must be considered as private Trust only.

P.K. MISRA, J.

Plaintiffs are the appellants.

2. Plaintiffs had filed an application under Section 63(a) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) that the plaintiff institution - Krishna Vilas Bajanai Madam is not a temple or a mutt or a religious institution or a specific endowment as defined under the Act. Initially the Deputy Commissioner held that it was a religious institution within the meaning of the Act. In appeal, the matter was remanded. At that stage, considering the various materials on record, including the report of the Inspector, the Deputy Commissioner held that the institution does not come within the purview of the Act. However, in appeal, the Commissioner held that the institution was a ‘religious institution’ within the meaning of the Act. Thereafter a statutory suit was instituted.

3. The basic allegations are to the effect that forefathers of the plaintiff who were devotees of Lord Krishna established a private Trust for the purpose of doing bajanais and for doing poojas for some days. Certain properties were in the name of the Trust and other properties were purchased in the name of the private persons and the income was utilized for the purpose of holding poojas. Even though at times the members of the public were permitted, they had no right and, therefore, the institution must be taken to be a private Trust. The contention on behalf of the Department as well as the third defendant was to the effect that such Trust had been created by document dated 20.7.1896, which indicated that the institution was a public charitable institution and subsequently the Trustees had executed another document under Exhibit A-11, but the effect of the original Trust cannot be taken away in any manner. The trial Court held that the plaintiff's Trust is not a private Trust, but a temple as defined under the Act. In appeal, the learned single Judge did not agree with the findings of the trial Court that the institution was a temple. However, the learned single Judge observed that the institution was a public charitable institution coming within the purview of the Act.

In this appeal, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that the conclusion of the learned single Judge to the effect that the institution is a charitable institution coming within the scope of the Act is not sustainable in view of the materials on record. It is further submitted that in the absence of any evidence that public had right to participate in any worship, the conclusion cannot be sustained. In particular, the learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the Inspection Report of the Deputy Commissioner, where it has been clearly indicated that the place of the institution is accessible only from inside the house. It is also pointed out that there is no evidence that the public had right to participate in the bajanai or in the worship and, therefore, it cannot be considered as a public charitable institution.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the H.R & C.E. Department has supported the conclusion of the Courts below.

5. As per Section 6(13) “math” means a Hindu religious institution with properties attached thereto and presided over by a person, the succession to whose office devolves in accordance with the direction of the Founder of the institution or is regulated by usage and -

(i) whose duty is to engage himself in imparting religious instruction or rendering spiritual service; or

(ii) who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples; and includes places of religious worship or instruction which are appurtenant to the institution.

As per Section 6(18), “religious institution” means a math, temple or specific endowment and includes, -

(i) a samadhi; or

(ii) any other institution established or maintained for a religious purpose.

As per Section 6(19), “specific endowment” means any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific servi