Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.The grant was of government land. The grant was, even going by the case of the claimants, in favour of persons who were acting as poojaris of the temple, for the purpose of utilising its income for poojas and maintenance of the temple. Even in the extract of the fasli register, it is shown that the registered name of the inamdar is poojaris of Mariamman and Bhagavathiamman Temples and the enjoyers as Veerana Pandaram and Arunachalam Chetty. The relation between the inamdar and the enjoyer is shown as devadayam and in the column regarding details of inam, it is shown as for poojas to God (Sasvatham) and in the column relating to details of endowment, it is shown that the income of the land is used by the poojaris for pooja and maintenance of the temples. Prima facie, government land had been dedicated to the temples by way of grants by the Government. Even if the income therefrom had alone been dedicated to the temples, it would still be a religious trust or endowment and certainly not a private trust to which the Trusts Act, 1882 would apply. Section 1 of the Trusts Act, 1882 itself provides that nothing contained therein applies to public or private religious or charitable endowments. The endowment here was certainly not a private endowment since there is no case that the temples are private. The endowment was for a religious purpose, the conducting of poojas in the temples and the maintenance of the temples. Therefore, endowment was of public property for the benefit of public temples and the poojaris constituted the trustees. They were trustees imposed with the obligation of spending the income from the properties, for the poojas and maintenance of the temple. It was clearly a case of a public religious endowment and by virtue of Section 1 of the Act, the Trusts Act, 1882 would have no application. Learned counsel for the respondents tried to argue that the application under Section 34 of the Trusts Act, 1882 was maintainable but could not argue that these were private trusts by reference to any relevant material. The lands were government lands and the Government had dedicated the properties or the income therefrom for the upkeep of public temples. By no stretch of imagination, can it be held that it was a private trust coming within the purview of the Trusts Act, 1882. The District Judge has, therefore, clearly acted without jurisdiction in entertaining the application under Section 34 of the Trusts Act, 1882. On this short ground, it has to be held that the order passed by the District Judge in the application filed under Section 34 of the Act granting permission to the claimants to sell the properties is one without jurisdiction. The High Court was completely in error in brushing aside this vital aspect while considering whether the District Judge had acted within jurisdiction in entertaining the application under Section 34 of the Trusts Act, 1882.