Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
The Court's role includes ensuring proper administration, especially if the trust property is mismanaged or the original object of the trust has failed, and such issues can be settled through civil litigation ["Temple Shri Jagannathji VS Salharu Prasad - Madhya Pradesh"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Prakashveer Sharma VS Murti Shri Dwarikadheesh Maharaj - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Prakashveer Sharma VS Murti Shri Dwarka Dheesh Maharaj, Morar, Gwalior - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Prakashveer Sharma VS Murti Shri Dwarikadheesh Maharaj Virajman Mandir Thakur Dwarikadhieeshji, Morar, Gwalior - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department vs Arulmighu Kottar Ezhava Oor - Madras"]- ["Maa Banjari Devi Temple Trust, Through Its Trustee - Pradeep Kumar Sharma, S/o. Shri M. D. Sharma VS Pandit Ravishankar Tiwari, S/o. Late Kirat Ram Tiwari - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Hari Sharan Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department, Chennai VS S. Munusamy Chettiar - Madras"]- ["Deveshkant Singh S/o Late Bhumendra Narain VS State of Bihar - Patna"]- ["Kumbeswarar Koil, Kurinjipadi VS Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai - Madras"]- ["SHREE VINAYAKA DEV IDAGUNJI, HONNAVAR, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT VS SHIVARAM - Karnataka"]- ["SHRI RAMJANKI MANDIR TRUST VS STATE - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Ramchandra Ji Mandir Sarwarakar Chudamanidas Akhilesh Das VS State of Chhattisgarh - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Ajay Kumar Mahto VS State of Bihar - Patna"]- ["Ishwar Chanda Sharma VS Devendra Kumar Sharma - Supreme Court"]- ["Temple Shri Jagannathji VS Salharu Prasad - Madhya Pradesh"]
In the realm of religious endowments in India, temples often become battlegrounds for disputes over their status as public or private trusts. A common question arises: If an entry is rectified by a civil court under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (RPTA), can the civil court order administration of the temple or declare its status? This issue is critical for trustees, devotees, and temple managers navigating the complexities of trust registration and management.
This blog post delves into the legal framework, drawing from key provisions like Sections 21 and 22 of the RPTA, judicial precedents, and analogous cases from other states. Note: This is general information based on legal analyses and should not be considered specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The RPTA, enacted in 1959, regulates public trusts in Rajasthan, focusing on registration, inquiries, and administration. Chapter V (Sections 16-22) outlines the process: After an inquiry under Sections 18-19 and any appeal under Section 20, entries are made in the register of public trusts under Section 21. These entries are generally final and conclusive. However, Section 22 provides a limited window for challenge.
Under Section 22, a working trustee or person with an interest in the trust can file a civil suit within six months of the publication of entries to cancel or modify them. Laxmi Chand Nath VS Commissioner of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Devasthan Department - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2928Laxmi Chand Nath VS The Commissioner of Rajasthan - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 1687 As stated: Under section 22 a working trustee or a person having interest in the trust or in any property found to be trust property-aggrieved by any entry made under section 21, may file suit in the civil court within six months of publication of the entries. Laxmi Chand Nath VS Commissioner of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Devasthan Department - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2928
This rectification typically addresses the temple's status—whether it qualifies as a 'public trust' under Section 2(11). Public trusts benefit the public at large, unlike private ones confined to family or specific individuals. Rectification can declare a temple private, removing it from RPTA oversight. Ramesh Chandra Brahmin (Sevak) VS Milap Chand Mathur - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1364
Civil courts can rectify entries to declare a temple's status. In the Shri Iklingnath temple case, the Additional District Judge set aside entries deeming it a public trust, holding them invalid. Bhagwat Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 1984 0 Supreme(Raj) 130 The court noted: The learned Additional District Judge recorded his finding on this issue that the entry of the aforesaid trust as public trust in the prescribed register under section 21 of the Act was invalid. The said entry along with the other entries were consequently set-aside. Bhagwat Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 1984 0 Supreme(Raj) 130
Such a declaration has significant effects:- If rectified as not public, RPTA ceases to apply—no compulsory registration or Act-based administration. Ramesh Chandra Brahmin (Sevak) VS Milap Chand Mathur - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1364 There is no mandatory requirement that every trust is required to be compulsorily registered... The definition of the 'Public Trust' as defined in Clause (11) of Section 2... do not envisage any such compulsory registration of all the Public Trusts. Ramesh Chandra Brahmin (Sevak) VS Milap Chand Mathur - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1364- Prosecutions or management actions under the Act halt until re-enquiry. Bhagwat Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 1984 0 Supreme(Raj) 130
Post-declaration, if private, civil courts regain full jurisdiction under CPC Section 9, as Section 73 RPTA's bar (on suits regarding public trust administration) no longer applies. Laxmi Chand Nath VS Commissioner of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Devasthan Department - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2928 Where the temple/trust itself is claimed to be private trust, the bar created under section 73 of the Act would not be attracted. Under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, civil courts have jurisdiction... Laxmi Chand Nath VS Commissioner of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Devasthan Department - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2928
However, civil courts cannot directly order or assume temple administration in a Section 22 suit. No provision empowers this; suits are limited to entry rectification. Laxmi Chand Nath VS Commissioner of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Devasthan Department - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2928 Administration vests with statutory authorities like the Assistant Commissioner or Commissioner, especially for listed public trusts under Sections 52-53.
In the Rikhabdevji temple cases, courts declared status but deferred management to state committees under Section 53. State Of Rajasthan VS Sajjanlal Panjawat - 1973 0 Supreme(SC) 423 Section 22(3) requires the Assistant Commissioner to correct entries per the decree, potentially triggering re-enquiry, not court takeover. Bhagwat Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 1984 0 Supreme(Raj) 130 On the decision of the suit, the Assistant Commissioner shall correct the entries made in the aforesaid register in accordance with such decision as laid down in section 22 (3) of the Act. Bhagwat Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 1984 0 Supreme(Raj) 130
Section 73 bars civil suits on public trust administration except as expressly provided (e.g., Section 22). Proactive management orders would supplant authorities, which courts avoid.
Similar principles emerge from other public trusts acts, reinforcing RPTA limits:
Bombay Public Trusts Act (BPTA): Civil courts handle possession suits or administration directions under Sections 50-51, but only with Charity Commissioner's sanction. Originating summons for trust property issues were dismissed if time-barred or jurisdictionally improper. Thakkar Kanji Morarjee Bhatia Niwas & Thakkar Vasanji Morarjee Chawl Trust VS Charity Commissioner - 2014 Supreme(Bom) 1869 In hereditary pujari rights disputes, civil jurisdiction persists if not barred by Section 80 BPTA, as no trust existence was contested. Sahebgouda (Dead) By Lrs. VS Ogeppa - 2003 3 Supreme 13
Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act: Section 92 CPC suits for public trust breaches don't cover status disputes (public vs. private); remanded for merits. Kaushalendra Prapannacharya S/o Late Shri Shriniwasacharya Ji VS (Deleted) Shri Ramkishan Jajodiya - 2024 Supreme(Chh) 363
Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act: Courts upheld public trust status, allowing Board supervision without civil interference. Shri Shitala Mata Mandir VS Bihar State Religious Trust Board - 2020 Supreme(Pat) 101
General Precedent: Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kamla Town Trust (AIR 1996 SC 620) affirmed civil courts' power to amend/rectify trust deeds under Section 92 CPC for public trusts, but tied to charitable purposes. Arti Meenakshi Muthiah VS Lady M. Ct. Muthiah Chettiar Girls Higher Secondary School Trust - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 515BHARATBHAI LAVJIBHAI GABU VS GOPINATHJI DEV MANDIR TRUST THROUGH CHAIRMAN HARJIBHAI - 2013 Supreme(Guj) 138
These cases illustrate a consistent theme: Civil courts declare status or rectify but defer administration to specialized authorities, preventing forum-shopping.
Key limitations include:- Time-bar: Strictly six months from publication; late suits dismissed. Laxmi Chand Nath VS Commissioner of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Devasthan Department - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2928- Public Trusts: Section 73 fully bars administration suits if status upheld.- Writs: Article 226 challenges authority errors, not substitute administration.- Private Temples: Fresh CPC suits for management post-declaration.- Unregistered Temples: Evade Act unless inquired into. Ramesh Chandra Brahmin (Sevak) VS Milap Chand Mathur - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1364
Understanding these nuances can prevent protracted litigation. For tailored guidance, engage a Rajasthan trusts law expert. Stay informed on evolving precedents like the Rikhabdevji saga. State Of Rajasthan VS Sajjanlal Panjawat - 1973 0 Supreme(SC) 423
References: Analyzed from RPTA provisions and cases including Laxmi Chand Nath VS Commissioner of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Devasthan Department - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2928, Laxmi Chand Nath VS The Commissioner of Rajasthan - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 1687, Bhagwat Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 1984 0 Supreme(Raj) 130, Ramesh Chandra Brahmin (Sevak) VS Milap Chand Mathur - 2015 0 Supreme(Raj) 1364, State Of Rajasthan VS Sajjanlal Panjawat - 1973 0 Supreme(SC) 423, and analogous judgments.
#RajasthanPublicTrustsAct, #TempleAdministration, #CivilCourtJurisdiction
Public Trust Act. It is further argued that the respondent/plaintiff has sought relief to declare the public trust as null and void, which is barred under Sec. 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act. ... Public Trust Act provides as below :- '36. ... Learned trial Court had decided the suit without taking into consideration the effect of enforcement of the M.P. ....
Public Trust Act. It is further argued that the respondent/plaintiff has sought relief to declare the public trust as null and void, which is barred under section 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act. ... Public Trust Act provides as below :- “36. ... Learned trial Court had decided the suit without taking into consideration the effect of enforcement of the M.P. #HL_STA....
Public Trust Act. It is further argued that the respondent/plaintiff has sought relief to declare the public trust as null and void, which is barred under section 32 of M.P. Public Trust Act. ... Public Trust Act provides as below :- “36. ... Learned trial Court had decided the suit without taking into consideration the effect of enforcement of the M.P. #HL_STA....
would not be a deciding factor to declare the temple as public. ... Following the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the other facts stated supra cannot be a factor to declare the temple as public temple. ... Next test is whether the general public can claim as a matter of right and if the answer is no, then the same is private trust. ... Therefore, the twin test to ....
whether the trust in question is public or private. ... Even the Registrar may consider and file such an application before the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction as defined under Section 2(1) of the Act, 1951 for appropriate directions to ensure better administration of the Public Trust and if such application is filed, a procedure has been stipulated ... Public Trusts Act, 1951 (in s....
They filed a detailed objection stating therein that application filed by petitioners is not maintainable as the property which was donated by Dhaneshwari and Bageshwari to the temple is a public trust and the Civil Court has power under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code regarding administration of ... IV Additional District Judge, Azamagarh 31, it has been held by this Court after following certain decisions of the Supreme Court that whet....
We went through the order and the pleading which is before the Court. 7. The proceeding would show that the Court proceeded to adjudicate a civil suit which was predominantly under Section 8 of the C.G. Public Trust Act, 1951. ... The plaintiff participated in the proceeding before the public trust, however, by an order dated 28/01/2008, the Registrar, Public Trust under Sections....
But the defendants failed to state on which date the order was issued to the plaintiffs, whether the order was send through registered post or by any other means in their written statement. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order was not issued by the defendants in time. ... The next contention is that the section 6(20) of the Act was not properly considered by the Trial Court. The suit temple has the features of p....
However, it was clarified that to say that once a dispute is raised, the Board has no jurisdiction to decide whether a religious trust is public or private, and that it must abdicate its functions and go to the Civil Court, will not be justified by any Authority and will render the provisions of the ... Trivedi for the sole purpose of demonstrating that once a decision by the Board was taken for registering the trust with it as a public religious trust#HL_EN....
The above facts shows that, Temple falls with in the character of Public Temple. That apart, the Temple is being administered by way of Scheme framed and the fact that Public Trust is administering the Temple also shows that beneficiaries of Trust being general public. ... No.1742 of 1992 was not taken up for the consideration by the Division Bench of this Court, while granting liberty to the appellant and as held ....
Accordingly, ancestors of appellants were neither title holder nor founder of the temple but they can claim right to hold the office of shebaitship and for which several litigations were fought among rival contenders claiming themselves to be Shebaits of Temple. However, in such litigations, whether temple is a private temple or a public temple was neither an issue nor decided by the civil court in said civil (Title) suit.
A suit required to be filed for recovery of possession would have to be filed in a Civil Court. Orders and directions for administration of any public trust may also be given by the Civil Court. Under Section 50 or 51 of the BPT Act, they would not be matters required to be decided by the Charity Commissioner or any other officer under the Act finally and conclusively. This would only be subject to the Charity Commissioner's consent/sanction.
10. In AIR 1996 SC 620 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kamla Town Trust), the Supreme court has considered amendment of the trust deed and held as follows: “Civil court has jurisdiction to amend or rectify the trust deeds.”
The Division Bench of this Court has decided that scope of the said application in a proceeding which requires leading of evidence and examining the evidence would be procedure akin to trying of a suit in the High Court which appears to be a proposition which is unjustifiable, and accordingly, dismissed the same. On the point of jurisdiction of the District Court, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 - Trust has placed reliance on an unreported decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Laljibhai Bhikhabhai Dhaduk v. Trust of the Temple of Shree Laxmi....
It was held that the question whether the temple is a public trust could only be decided by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and this point could not be decided by the Civil Court as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred under Section 80 of the Act. The High Court has observed that a very important point regarding the effect of filing of the application for registration of the temple before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Belgaum and the pendency of inquiry before him regarding registration of the temple as a Trust escaped the notice of the courts below. It w....
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
