Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sandipkumar C. More, J
Vasantrao s/o Dagajirao Patil – Appellant
Versus
Bhilajirao s/o Sampatrao Deokar – Respondent
| 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 responden
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
