9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the temple and the properties in suit are the personal properties of the plaintiff or are trust properties under the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1951. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Personal Properties vs. Trust Properties: - Background and Claims: The respondent-mahant claimed that the asthal and its properties were personal properties, originally gifted personally to the founding mahant and subsequently to his successors. The Board argued that these were not personal gifts but were intended for the asthal, thus constituting a public trust. - Trial Court's Judgment: The Trial Judge framed the issue based on whether the properties were personal or trust properties. He concluded that the properties were public religious trust properties, considering factors such as the celibate nature of the mahants, the establishment of a sampradaya, public use of the temple, and the nature of ceremonies performed. - High Court's Judgment: The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation in Mahant Ramsaroop Das Ji v. S. P. Sahi, held that the trust defined in the Act meant only public trusts and did not include private trusts. It found that the factors used by the Trial Judge to presume a public trust were consistent with a private religious trust. Therefore, it reversed the Trial Judge's decision and decreed in favor of the respondent, holding that the Act did not apply to the properties in suit. 2. Evidence and Presumptions: - Oral Evidence: The oral evidence provided by the Board's witnesses was deemed not credible, as it lacked personal knowledge and was interested. The High Court noted that the mere failure of the mahant to produce original sanads did not justify an adverse inference against him. - Documentary Evidence: The documentary evidence included deeds of gift or nomination, sales, purchases, mortgage deeds, and revenue records. The High Court emphasized that the properties were recorded in the names of the mahants as proprietors, not in the name of the deities. - Burden of Proof: The High Court held that the burden of proof was on the appellant-Board to show that the properties were held on trust for public purposes. The Trial Judge erred in drawing an adverse inference from the non-production of sanads by the respondent-mahant. 3. Public vs. Private Trust: - Public Use and Ceremonies: The High Court observed that public use of the temple and participation in festivals did not necessarily indicate a public trust. According to Hindu sentiments, turning away worshippers is uncommon, and public participation does not automatically imply public trust. - Precedent Cases: The High Court referred to cases like Parmanand v. Nihal Chand and Babu Bhagwan Din vs. Gir Har Saroop, where public use did not convert private properties into public trusts. The mere presence of the public and their offerings were insufficient to establish a public trust. - Declarations and User: Unlike in Mahant Puran Atal v. Darshan Das, there were no declarations or consistent use of properties indicating a charitable trust in the present case. 4. Nature of Asthal and Properties: - Asthal as a Private Institution: The High Court noted that an asthal could be a private institution where the endowment is not intended for public benefit. The properties were managed and acquired by the mahants in their own names, indicating private ownership. - Ceremonies and Descriptions: The High Court found no clear evidence of ceremonies like Pratistha or Utsarga that would indicate public dedication. Descriptions of properties as "appertaining to the asthal" in deeds did not conclusively establish a public trust. Conclusion: The High Court correctly reversed the Trial Court's judgment, holding that the appellant-Board failed to prove that the properties were public trust properties under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1951. The respondent-mahant's suit was rightly decreed, affirming that the properties did not fall within the ambit of the Act. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs.
|
