Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 23932
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sandipkumar C. More, J
Vasantrao s/o Dagajirao Patil – Appellant
Versus
Bhilajirao s/o Sampatrao Deokar – Respondent
First Appeal No. 548 of 1998 | Civil Application No. 6452 of 1998
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vivek Dhage, Mr. M. H. Patil
For the Respondents: Mr. A. D. Shinde
Determining the nature of a temple as public or private trust involves assessing historical use, community involvement, and lack of conclusive ownership evidence.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Section 72 - Dispute regarding the Vitthal Mandir's status as private property or public trust - The trial court found it a public trust based on evidence from both sides - The test for determining dedication to public noted in various Supreme Court judgments was considered. (Paras 2-17)
(B) The court determined that the temple was treated as public due to historical use and contributions from the community, despite the appellant's claims of private ownership. (Paras 4-6, 17)
Facts of the case:
The dispute involves the status of the Vitthal Mandir at Virdel, with the appellants asserting ownership while the respondents claim it as a public trust needing registration under the Act. Initial inquiries and decisions at various administrative levels about the temple's character culminated in this appeal.
Findings of Court:
The primary evidence indicated that the temple served public interests and was historically treated as a public entity, which the appellate court upheld as correctly established by the lower courts.
Issues: The court addressed whether the temple was private property or had a public character requiring registration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the lack of conclusive evidence on private control and the temple’s historical public usage warranted its classification as a public trust in accordance with established tests from case law.
Result: The present appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the temple's ownership and public trust dispute. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding private ownership versus public trust. (Para 4) |
| 3. legal tests to assess public versus private character. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. evidence of historical claims and community involvement. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. indicators and documentation supporting public dedication. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 6. conclusion that temple is a public trust based on community engagement. (Para 14 , 16 , 17) |
The Appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 02.03.1998 in Civil Appeal No. 209/1985 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Dhule in an application under Section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 which was filed by the present respondents.
2. The background facts are summarized as under : The present dispute is in respect of a temple known as Vitthal Mandir situated at village Virdel. The appellants are claiming that it is a private property of themselves, whereas the respondents are claiming that the said Vitthal Mandir is of public character and it has to be registered as public trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act. Initially the respondents filed application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nashik being a trustee of the said temple for registration of the said Mandir is of public trust. The respondent Nos.1 to 4, out of which some of are no more, had contended that registration of trust in respect of said Mandir was necessary to maintain the temple and carry out the ‘Puja-Archa’ and also for making arrangement of marriages for financially backward people of the village. According to them, the temple was shown as Grampanchayat House No. 1 in the records. After receiving such application, the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner initiated enquiry under Section 19 of the Public Trust Act by issuing public notices. Appellant No. 1 had an objection for such registration and claimed that it was a private property of his forefathers and himself. The learned Assistant Charity Commissioner, during the enquiry, recorded evidence from both the sides and ultimately upheld that the aforesaid Vitthal Mandir at Virdel constitutes a public trust, requiring registration under the provisions of the Act.
3. Against that decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the appellants and respondent No. 6, who is also no more, has preferred appeal before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Bombay and the Deputy Charity Commissioner, vide his judgment dated 31.05.1985, set aside the decision of Assistant Charity Commissioner and held that the aforesaid Mandir does not constitute a public trust requiring registration, since the land of the same was still in the name of present appellants. Against this decision of the Deputy Charity Commissioner the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had preferred appeal before the learned District Judge, Dhule as aforesaid, who upheld the decision of Assistant Charity Commissioner by setting aside the judgment dated 31.05.1985 passed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner in Appeal No. 4/1984. Hence, this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are owners of the property on which the temple is constructed, and therefore, the temple has not acquired the character of public nature. He pointed out various contrary inferences drawn by the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner whereby it was wrongly held that the said Vitthal Mandir is of public nature. He further pointed out that the learned District Judge ignored the fact that there was no pleading in the original application filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 before the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner as regards the dedication of the temple to public at large and alleged contributions in funds by the public in constructing the said temple. He supported the judgment of the Joint Charity Commissioner whereby the private nature of aforesaid Vitthal Mandir was protected. He relied on the followin
