1956 (10) TMI 35 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Thakurdwara of Sri Radhakrishnaji in Bhadesia is a private temple or a public one.
2. Interpretation of the will of Sheo Ghulam and its implications on the nature of the endowment.
3. User of the temple by the public and its significance.
4. Ceremonies relating to the dedication of the Thakurdwara and installation of the idol.
5. Other facts indicating the character of the temple.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Thakurdwara:
The primary issue was whether the Thakurdwara of Sri Radhakrishnaji in Bhadesia is a private temple or a public one. The court concluded that the distinction between a private and public trust lies in the beneficiaries: specific individuals in the former and the general public or a class thereof in the latter. The court examined the intention of the founder, Sheo Ghulam, and the facts surrounding the temple's use and management to determine the nature of the endowment.

2. Interpretation of the Will:
The will of Sheo Ghulam, Exhibit A-1, was crucial in determining the founder's intention. The testator had no male issue and constructed the Thakurdwara, dedicating all his properties to Sri Radhakrishnaji. The will appointed his two wives as Mutawallis and provided for the temple's expenses. The court found that the will's provisions, including the appointment of a management committee with non-family members and the lack of specific beneficiaries within the family, indicated an intention to create a public endowment.

3. User of the Temple by the Public:
The plaintiff's witnesses testified that the villagers worshipped at the temple freely, suggesting public use. The trial judge initially inferred that the public's access was by grace, not right, based on the pujari's actions. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that such actions were out of respect for the founder's wife and did not negate the public's right to worship. The court emphasized that public user without interference is strong evidence of a public endowment.

4. Ceremonies of Dedication:
The dedication ceremonies, including the installation of the idol with great solemnity, were admitted by both parties. The appellant argued that the performance of the Uthsarga ceremony indicated a public dedication. However, the court clarified that Prasadothsarga, not Uthsarga, was performed, which does not denote public dedication. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the Prathista ceremony, which was performed, sufficed to establish a public dedication.

5. Other Indicative Facts:
Several factors supported the public nature of the endowment:
- The idol was installed in a separate building, not within residential quarters.
- Some idols were permanently installed on a pedestal, consistent with public endowments.
- The temple's puja was performed by an appointed archaka.
- The temple was built at the villagers' instance, indicating a public purpose.

The court noted that the first defendant did not plead that the temple was for family benefit, and the evidence did not support such a claim. The court concluded that the Thakurdwara was intended for public worship by all Hindus.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' decrees, and declared that the Thakurdwara of Sri Radhakrishnaji in Bhadesia is a public temple. The costs of the appellant in all courts were to be borne by the trust properties, while the first defendant was to bear his own costs throughout.