Back
Allahbad High Court
M.N.SHUKLA
Sarjoo - Appellant
Versus
Pandit Ayodhya Prasad - Respondent
Decided On : 07/14/1978
RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1863 - S.14 - PUBLIC TEMPLE - PRIVATE TEMPLE - DISTINCTION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - DEDICATION - USER BY PUBLIC - MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL - OFFERINGS - CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE - EVIDENCE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - LEGISLATIVE HISTORY - PREAMBLE - S.92, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, claiming to be religious-minded men and worshippers of the idol Devi Annapurna Ji installed in the temple in dispute, instituted a suit under S.14 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that the defendants, who claimed to be the Managers of the deity, were mismanaging the affairs of the temple and were guilty of misfeasance, breach of trust, and negligence in the performance of their duties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the temple in dispute was a private temple and not a public endowment, and therefore the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the case. The court also found that the defendants were not mismanaging the affairs of the temple and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their allegations of maladministration.
Issues: 1. Whether the temple in dispute was a public or private endowment? 2. Whether the defendants were mismanaging the affairs of the temple? 3. Whether the suit was maintainable under S.14 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863? 4. Whether the suit was barred under S.92 of the Civil Procedure Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. In determining whether a temple is a public or private endowment, the court considered various factors, including the existence of documentary evidence relating to the dedication of the temple, the acceptance and division of offerings made to the deity, the management and control of the temple, and the user of the temple by the public. 2. The court held that the evidence in the case overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that the temple was a private endowment. The plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence relating to the dedication of the temple, and the evidence showed that the defendants had consistently managed and controlled the temple and appropriated the offerings made to the deity. 3. The court held that the provisions of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 were not applicable to the case because the temple was a private endowment. The court also held that the suit was not maintainable under S.14 of the Act because the plaintiffs had failed to obtain the consent in writing of the Advocate-General, as required by S.92 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decree of the trial court was set aside, and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed.
2. The defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 contested the suit on a number of grounds, alleging that the temple was not a public one and as such the plaintiffs were not entitled to file the suit, that they had nothing to do with the management or Seva Poojah of the deity, that the temple was constructed by the Pandas who were the ancestors of the defendants 350 years ago, who had regularly managed the temple and thereafter the defendants who were their descendants had been properly managing it and doing Seva Poojah and management of the temple, and that it was a private temple and Pacca constructions had been made by the defendants therein with the help of the offerings.
3. The trial court came to the conclusion that it was a public temple, that the suit was maintainable as the provisions of the Act were applicable to the facts of the case, that the defendants were mismanaging the affairs of the temple and were guilty of breach of trust and negligence of duty. The suit was accordingly decreed and the defendants were ordered to do the proper Seva Poojah of the temple, to arrange and celebrate Utsava as and when they fell due every year and to keep proper accounts of the income and to spend at least 75 per cent of the income on Bhog Byari, Utsavas and other matters connected with the temple. It was also held that if they did not comply with any of the above directions they would be liable to be removed from the management of the temple in suit.
4. The appellants have challenged the decree in this appeal and three contentions were raised before me on their (behalf). Firstly, it was argued that the temple in dispute was a private temple. Secondly, it was submitted that its affairs were not being mismanaged by the defendants. Thirdly, it was contended that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the case and consequently the suit was not maintainable.
5. The foremost question, therefore, which arises for determination is as to whether the temple in suit was a public or private endowment. The plaintiffs came with specific allegations in the plaint and the burden was entirely on them to establish that it was
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
