Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, at some length. The arguments raised on behalf of the parties in this appeal involve both a question of fact as well as of law. The question of fact only relates to the existence of a public trust of religious and charitable nature while the question of law relates to the impleadment of defendants Nos. 5 to 13 and the effect of the order passed on an objection under Section 11 of the Encumbered Estates Act.

9. So far as the question of fact goes I do not at all agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the grove in suit is not a trust property or that the temple of Sri Satya Narain Ji Maharaj does not constitute a public trust of religious and charitable character, it is true that there is no written document of trust and the entry in the village papers stands in the name of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 or their ancestors. The mere absence of a written document or mere absence of the entries is not a conclusive proof of the non-existence of a trust. A valid trust may be created not only by means of a written document but also orally but what is required in the case of oral trust is that the property must have been treated to be- an endowed property and it must have been used towards charitable and religious purposes for which tne trust was created. This is sufficiently proved in this case both by oral evidence as well as indirect documentary evidence. So far as the oral evidence goes the defendants creditors produced no evidence whatsoever in the case to rebut the statements of the three witnesses produced on behalf of the plaintiff, that is Devi Ram, Kuber Singh and Sir Prasad. All the three witnesses have deposed that the grove in suit In village Kaimar Is dedicated to the temple which is a public trust. It further appears from the evidence that the very name of the grove is Thakur Satya Narain Ji Ka Bagh. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the trust was not created in presence of any of these witnesses. That may be so, but it Is a case, in which the evidence only relates to the dedication of the property by user and consequently what is material in such a case is whether the property was deemed to be a trust property and was used as such and Its income was applied towards charitable purposes, This is sufficiently proved, particularly from the statement of Gir Prasad who is one of the trustees. His statement goes To show that the income of the grove was always spent for the maintenance of the temple and that the temple is public and not private. The grove and the land belong to the deity and are public trust property. It was elicited in his cross-examination that the grove is muafi and the income is Rs. 25/- or Rs. 26/- a year. The statement of this witness relied upon by the lower court is very much convincing and goes to show that the temple is a public trust and the grove and all the land belong to the deity.