Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.47 seconds)Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950
Deoki Nandan vs Murlidhar on 4 October, 1956
An attempt appears to have been made in' the Trial Court to
establish that certain ceremonies, such as Sankalpa,
Pratistha and Utsarga, were performed at the time when idols
were installed in the temple. In the case of temples
Pratistha, and not Utsarga, if established, would indicate
dedication to the public. (see Kane's History of
Dharmasastras, Vol. 2, part If, 892 to 893, and Deoki Nandan
v. Murlidhar (4 ). Unfortunately for the appellant Board,.
there was no clear evidence of the particular ceremonies
performed at the time when Gaibi Ramdasji installed the
idols except a general 'statement from the respondent that
when idols are installed in temples Pran Pratistha is
generally performed. Support for a dedication to the public
was also sought from the fact that the idols were installed
permanently on a pedestal (Sinhasun) and the temple was
constructed on ground.-, separate from the residential
quarters of the mahant. In the first place, such factors
are also found in private temples and mutts, and therefore,
are not conclusive. In the second place, there was the
evidence that the mahants residential quarters are in fact
not separate from the temple premises.
Babu Bhagwan Din vs Gir Har Saroop on 10 October, 1939
Evidence that the mahants used to celebrate Hindu festivals
when members of the public used to attend the temple and
give offerings and that the public were admitted to the
temple for darshan and worship is also not indicative of the
temple being one for the benefit of the public. The
celebration of festivals is, according to Hindu belief, part
and parcel of the puja of the deity. Such festivals are
celebrated in family and other private temper also. The,
fact that members of the public used to come to the temple
without any hindrance also does not necessarily mean that
the temple is a public temple, for members of the public do
attend private temples. It is against Hindu sentiments to
turn away persons who come to do worship and darshan. The
mere fact, therefore, that no instance had occurred when
persons from the public were asked to go away or the absence
of proof that they were allowed on permission or invitation
only cannot be conclusive of the temple being one in which
the public have by user acquired interest.
The case in point is of Babu Bhagwan Din vs. Gir Har Saroop
(2) . The original grant there was to the respondent ances-
tor, one Daryao Gir, by the then Nawab of Oudh. The
property in question comprised of land on which stood the
temple, the presiding deity of which was Bhaironji, certain
houses and shops. ,The respondents, who claimed to be the
descendants of the original grantee, were grahastha fakirs,
i.e., both goshains and house holders. There was no proof
that there had been any interference with the management of
the properties. The revenue records showed the properties
in the names of the descendants of Daryao Gir. The shops
were let out and in the leases concerning them the goshains
were referred to sometimes as owners and sometimes as owners
of the "asthan Sri Bhaironif'. There was evidence, however,
of members of the Hindu public having resorted to the temple
for worship and darshan without any obstruction. An annual
mela used to be held for many years with public subscription
on the grounds of the temple. The evidence showed that the
temple and the gushains profited from the increased resort
to the temple by the public the mela period. Yet, the Privy
Council held that the general effect of the evidence was
that the family had treated the temple as family property
and the mere fact of the members of the public having come
to the temple and having
(1) A.I.R. 1943 Pat, 135,
(2) 67 I.A. 1
689
made offerings and the mela having been held which gave
popularity to the temple and increased its esteem in the
eyes of the public and the fact that they were never turned
away were not enough to hold the temple and the properties
as a public trust. At page 10 of the report their Lordships
observed
Dedication to the public is not to be readily
inferred when it is known that the temple
property was acquired by grant to an
individual or family. Such an inference, if
made from the fact of user by the public, is
hazardous, since it would not in general be
consonant with Hindu sentiments or practice
that worshippers should be turned away; and,
as worship generally implies offerings of some
kind, it is not to be expected that the
managers of a private temple should in all
circumstances desire to discourage
popularity."
The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920
Section 92 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Puran Atal vs Darshan Das And Anr. on 18 April, 1912
In support of the argument,
reliance was placed on Mahant Puran Atal v. Darshan Das(1).
There was in that case also no evidence of any original
grant for a charitable purpose from a donor, nor was there
in evidence
(1)[1912] I.L.R. 34 All. 468.
Matam Nadipudi Koti Veeraya Alias ... vs The Board Of Commissioners For Hindu ... on 24 September, 1937
Puran Atal's case(,') has no application in the present case
because there is no evidence such as there was regarding the
user of the properties for the maintenance of a particular
far class of ascetics, nor are here declarations made from
time to time by the mahants which led the Court there to
pronounce that the trust was for a charitable purpose, and
on the strength of which the proper-ties were held revenue
free.
1