1981 (2) TMI 247 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the temple and its deity are a public endowment or a private family deity.
2. Interpretation of documentary evidence (Ext. A and Ext. 1) regarding the nature of the endowment.
3. Evaluation of oral evidence to support the nature of the endowment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of whether the temple and its deity are a public endowment or a private family deity:
The core issue in this appeal is whether the appellant-temple was a public endowment, as alleged by the respondent, or a family deity, as claimed by the appellants. The High Court had reversed the Subordinate Judge's decision, which had initially held that the temple was a private endowment. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the nature of the endowment based on the evidence presented.

2. Interpretation of documentary evidence (Ext. A and Ext. 1) regarding the nature of the endowment:
The Supreme Court examined two critical documents, Ext. A (dated February 18, 1895) and Ext. 1 (dated November 17, 1932), to ascertain the nature of the endowment.

Ext. A: The document indicated that the deity was the family deity of the Pani family, and the temple was built and managed by them. The document laid down specific directions for the management of the deity's property and worship, emphasizing that the management was to remain within the family. Key recitals from Ext. A included:
- The deity was installed by the Pani family as their family deity.
- The properties dedicated were private properties of the Pani family.
- No provision for public involvement in the management or worship was mentioned.
- The management was to be handled by appointed Sebaits, with control retained by the family.

Ext. 1: This settlement deed reiterated the private nature of the endowment, highlighting that the properties and temple were for the family deity and managed by the family. Key points included:
- The deity was established for the good of the family.
- The document removed certain individuals from management due to misappropriation and appointed new trustees from within the family.
- The family retained control and responsibility for the temple's upkeep and management.

The Supreme Court concluded that these documents clearly indicated a private endowment, with no intention to dedicate the temple to the public.

3. Evaluation of oral evidence to support the nature of the endowment:
The appellants presented oral evidence from witnesses (PWs 1 to 6) who testified that the public did not have a right to worship in the temple. Key testimonies included:
- PW 1 stated that the public had no right to worship or offer bhog to the deity.
- PW 5 confirmed that the deity was a family deity and not dedicated to the public.

The defense's witness (DW 1) was rejected by both the trial court and the High Court. The Supreme Court found the oral evidence corroborated the documentary evidence, supporting the conclusion that the endowment was private.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had misinterpreted the evidence and documents. The Court emphasized that the essential distinction between a public and private endowment is whether the beneficiaries are the general public or specific individuals. The evidence showed that the temple was intended for the Pani family and their descendants, with no provision for public worship as of right. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's decision was restored, recognizing the endowment as private. The appellants were awarded costs of Rs. 4,000.