1. Suit for setting aside a decision of the Commissioner of Endowments regarding the status of a math and its properties under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 153
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH, R.S. BACHAWAT, J.M. SHELAT AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.
Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das Appellant
Versus
Surjanarayan Das and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 205 of 1964, dated 6-5-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. P. K. Chatterjee. Advocate. with him), for Appellant: Mr. Niren De Addl. Solicitor-General of India, (M/s. Dipak Datta Choudhri and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 2.
Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI, NIREN DEY, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.N.SACH
A.K.SEN GUPTA, DIPAK DATTA CHAUDHURI, NIREN DEY, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.N.SACH
An institution meeting the statutory definition of a 'math' is generally a public religious endowment. Properties acquired by a celibate spiritual head are presumed to be institutional properties unless proven otherwise, particularly when intended for the benefit of an indeterminate class of disciples and followers.
Headnote:(A) Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 - Sections 2, 6, 49, and 64 - Definition of 'math' and 'religious endowment' - Determination of public nature of a religious institution - Onus of proof - Properties acquired by a celibate spiritual head - Presumption of institutional ownership.
(B) An institution is considered a 'math' if it satisfies three conditions: it is for the promotion of the Hindu religion, it is presided over by a person engaged in spiritual service or exercising spiritual headship over disciples, and succession to the office is regulated by the founder's directions or usage. (Para 12)
(C) An institution that falls within the definition of a 'math' is generally a public religious endowment. Since the object is to promote religion, the beneficiaries—comprising the fraternity and persons of the faith—constitute a section of the public, making the institution public in nature. (Paras 14-16)
(D) Where a suit is instituted to set aside a decision of a statutory authority under a specific provision of the Act, the initial onus lies on the plaintiff to establish that the decision is incorrect by proving the institution is not a 'math' or the properties are not endowed properties. (Para 20) (E) Properties acquired by a professed ascetic or celibate head of a religious institution are presumed to be purchased with the funds of the institution and held for its benefit, rather than in a personal capacity. (Paras 30)
Facts of the case:
A suit was filed to set aside a decision of the Commissioner of Endowments which had held that a particular religious institution was a 'math' and its properties were religious endowments subject to the Act. The plaintiff contended that the institution was not a public 'math', that the public had no right of entry or worship, and that the properties in question were either personal properties of the spiritual head or private debottar properties.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the institution was presided over by a spiritual head with a body of disciples and succession regulated by usage, thus fitting the definition of a 'math'. The evidence, including gift deeds mentioning perpetuity for disciples and the provision of food and shelter to visitors, established its public character. The properties, though often acquired in the name of the spiritual head, were held as a trustee for an indeterminate class of beneficiaries.
Issues: Whether the institution was a public 'math' as defined under the Act and whether the properties described in the plaint were the personal properties of the spiritual head or properties of the institution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that an institution for the promotion of religion is inherently public. The status of the spiritual head as a celibate ascetic creates a strong presumption that properties acquired during his tenure were for the institution. Furthermore, stipulations in gift deeds for the benefit of an indeterminate number of disciples and the practice of providing for pilgrims indicate a public trust rather than a private one.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- religious endowments
- property law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether the institution is a public math and whether the associated properties are personal, private debottar, or public religious endowments. (Para 5 , 7 )
3. The institution satisfies the statutory definition of a math; its purpose of promoting religion and serving an indeterminate body of disciples renders it a public endowment. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 )
4. An institution meeting the statutory definition of a math is ipso facto a public religious endowment; properties acquired by celibate Mahants are presumed to be institutional assets. (Para 14 , 30 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the institution and its properties are held to be a public math and public religious endowments. (Para 44 )
6. What constitutes a math under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act?
A math is an institution for promoting the Hindu religion, presided over by a person engaged in spiritual service or exercising spiritual headship over disciples, where succession is regulated by the founder's directions or usage. (Para 8 , 12 , 13 )
7. Is an institution that fits the definition of a math automatically a public religious endowment?
Yes. An institution that satisfies the definition of a math is ipso facto a Hindu public religious endowment because its purpose of promoting religion necessarily serves a section of the public. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
8. How is the nature of property acquired by a Mahant determined when the Mahant is a celibate ascetic?
Properties acquired by a professed ascetic and head of an institution are presumed to be purchased with institutional funds and held for the institution's benefit rather than for personal use. (Para 21 , 29 , 30 )
9. Who bears the initial burden of proof in a suit to set aside a decision of the Commissioner of Endowments under Section 64(2)?
The onus lies initially with the plaintiff to show that the Commissioner's decision is wrong by establishing that the institution is not a math or the properties are not endowed. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
Judgment
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and decree of the Orissa High Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri, dismissing the suit instituted by Mahant Gadadhar Ramanuj Das, represented after his death by Mahant Srinivas Ramanuj Das, for the setting aside of the decision of the Commissioner of Endowments, dated July 20, 1946, under S. 64 (1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939), hereinafter called the Act, and for a declaration that the Act did not apply to the properties described in Schedules Ka, Kha and Ga of the plaint.
2. The allegations in the plaint are as follows. The premises on which the residential quarters of the plaintiff existed was said to be popularly known as (i) Srinivas Kote; (ii) Rajagopal Math; (iii) Emar Math, according to the names of the different ancestors of the plaintiff, Srinivasachari, Rajagopalachari and Embarachari. It was alleged that these premises, though known as Emar Math was not a math as defined in the Act. The public had no free access to its premises and had no right of entry or worship of the deity installed therein. Embarachari and his ancestors were alleged to be grahasts. His successors to the Emar Math were celibates Srinivasachari was the grandfather of Embarachari. It is alleged that he acquired a portion of the present site of the plaintiff s residential quarters and built his residence there and installed therein his family deity Sri Raghunathji for his own spiritual benefit and the spiritual benefit of his family members and that Embarachari acquired a large plot of land adjacent to Srinivas Math as an absolute gift and constructed buildings thereon. The buildings therefore, became popularly known as Emar Math, although Embarachari was a married man and was living there with his wife and children with the private deity Sri Raghunathji.
3. The plaintiff alleged that the properties described in schedule Ka of the plaint were his personal properties, those in Schedule Ka-1 as acquired through absolute gifts to the plaintiff or his ancestors and those in Ka-2 as gifted to or purchased by the plaintiff or his predecessors and that they were wrongly recorded in the settlement papers in the name of the plaintiff as marfatdar of Lord Jagannath. The properties in Schedule Kha are alleged to be Amrit Manahi properties of Lord Jagannath held by the plaintiff as marfatdar and to have been acquired either by purchase or Karyadan or by way of gift subject to the charge of some offering to Lord Jagannath. The properties in Schedule Ga were alleged to be owned and possessed by the plaintiff as marfatdar of various private deities. It was alleged that none of the properties in these schedules was, however, dedicated to the public and that the public had no interest in or right to any of the properties. The properties, therefore, did not constitute public religious endowments within the meaning of the Act which, accordingly, could not apply to them.
4. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments Orissa, hereinafter called the Commissioner, demanded contribution under S. 49 of the Act and took steps to enforce certain other provisions of the Act against the plaintiff and the properties in Suit. This led the plaintiff to formally ask for a decision under S. 64 (1) of the Act. The Commissioner decided against him on July 20, 1946 and held that the Emar Math was a math as defined in the Act and that the properties constituted a religious endowment to which the Act applied. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted this suit and prayed for the setting aside of the decision of the Commissioner and for a declaration that the Act did not apply to the properties in suit.
5. The Commissioner, defendant No.2 contested the suit asserting that the properties in suit were public debottar properties and were public endowments to which the Act applied. It was further contended that the premises of
