Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Neel Prasad – Petitioner
Versus
Anoop Prasad – Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 860 of 2022
Decided On : 29-09-2022
Indian Trusts Act - Applicability to Religious Trust - Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Act of 1882, Section 1 - The court discussed the applicability of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 to a religious trust governing a temple and highlighted that the Act does not apply to public or private religious or charitable endowments. The court also mentioned that public religious endowments are governed by the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920 and certain other legislations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought permission to dispose of the property of a temple under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, for restoration of the temple. The District Judge rejected the application, stating that the Act of 1882 does not apply to public or private religious or charitable endowments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Act of 1882 does not apply to public religious trusts and upheld the decision of the District Judge. The court also noted that the petitioner's cause is noble and requires urgent relief, but the remedy advised to invoke is not available in the present case.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 to a religious trust governing a temple and the petitioner's request for permission to dispose of the temple property for restoration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act of 1882 does not apply to public religious trusts and that the petitioner's remedy is not available in the present case.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the petitioner was granted liberty to invoke any other remedy for securing urgent relief.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate, who on request of the Court acted as Amicus Curiae.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arises from proceedings brought before the District Judge of Gorakhpur under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (for short ‘the Act of 1882’).
3. By an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1882, the petitioner, invoking the advisory jurisdiction of the Court regarding the management of trust property of the temple of Thakur Ji, has come up with a prayer for the grant of permission to dispose of the property of the temple, that is de-butter, in order to apply the proceeds of the sale for restoration of the temple, that is said to be hundred years old and in a dilapidated condition.
4. The learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Gorakhpur, before whom the said application numbered as Civil Misc. Case No. 171 of 2020 came up, has rejected the same, holding that the Act of 1882 does not apply to public or private religious or charitable endowments.
5. It is against the said order that the unsuccessful applicant before the District Judge has petitioned this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
6. Since a purely legal question about the applicability of the Act of 1882 to a religious endowment or a trust, governing a temple, where thousands throng in faith was involved, this Court requested Mr. Manish Goyal to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Mr. Goyal readily rendered his very able assistance.
7. The applicant, Neel Prasad says that he has been the owner of a one-half share in the property shown in Schedule A to the application moved before the District Judge and has power of disposition over it. His ancestor, Rai Thakur Dayal Singh was an issueless man with inclination towards religion. He got a temple of Thakur Dwara Ji constructed and consecrated at Village Sarhari over land shown in Schedule B to the application, where members of the public in general offer prayers (Pooja-Archana). The said temple was got constructed by Rai Thakur Dayal Singh in the year 1880 and he donated for the purpose of maintenance of the said temple, as per his wish, 100 bighas (pakka) land. However, before Rai Thakur Dayal Singh could execute a deed of trust, gift or the other disposition in favour of the temple, he passed away. Therefore, his widow, Smt. Jaswant Kunwari and another Rai Devi Saran Lal executed a gift deed dated 29.04.1885, donating lands comprised in Schedule A to the application, then lying in Village Bhelam. In consequence, the name of Smt. Jaswant Kunwari was mutated out of the Government records and that of Thakur Ji Mandir, Sarhari was entered.
8. It is the petitioner's case that during the first and the second rounds of the consolidation operations, all that was the property of Thakur Ji Mandir, Sarhari, given in gift, remained His. The temple is for the benefit of public in general and has now turned 100 years old. It has fallen into disrepair and may collapse any time. It was, therefore, said that to save the temple from grave damage, it was necessary that fresh construction thereof be undertaken in keeping with Rai Thakur Dayal Singh's religious sentiments. An estimated expenditure of Rs. 16 lakhs in the enterprise was indicated, for which there were no funds with the temple. A prayer, therefore, was made that the property of the temple, that is de-butter, comprising of agricultural holdings, shown in Schedule A to the application, may be permitted to be sold, the proceeds whereof would be applied for reconstruction of the temple.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner says that the mischief sought to be remedied is grave and emergent. Mr. Goyal, on the other hand, submits that the Act of 1882 does not apply to any kind of a religious trust, public or private.
10. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned Amicus C
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 does not apply to public religious trusts, and the petitioner's remedy under Section 34 of the Act is not availabl....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of whether a trust is public or private depends on the intention of the donors and the nature of the beneficiaries. The cour....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dedication of the properties for the performance of Naivedyam service to the temple constituted a specific endowment, and the application ....
Art.227 jurisdiction barred when CPC O.7 R.11 remedy available for plaint rejection.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to file an application under Section 92 C.P.C. for managing public trusts involving public charity, and the necessity to implead th....
A suit under Section 92 C.P.C. must be filed in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, not in a Civil Judge's Court, and the absence of a trust-deed does not prevent admission.
The court ruled that actions taken by the State Hindu Religious Trust Board were without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with statutory provisions, affirming the private nature of the religious tr....
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
