9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining whether the temple in question is a religious trust under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act or a private endowment. Analysis: The case revolves around the dedication of properties to a temple in Bihar through various deeds executed by family members. The key issue is whether the temple qualifies as a religious trust under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act. The initial deed in 1921 divested the family members of any interest in the properties, appointing outsiders as panches to oversee the temple's management. Subsequent deeds in 1928 and 1934 reiterated similar provisions, emphasizing the appointment and dismissal of shebaits from the family based on their capabilities. The court highlighted the complete divestment of the family's title to the properties, making them properties of the deity, with family members serving as shebaits and managers. The Subordinate Judge initially viewed the 1921 document as creating a trust with public interest, but the High Court disagreed. The High Court emphasized that the temple's location within compound walls near the founders' house did not automatically indicate a public purpose. They also noted that the involvement of panches was limited, and there was no clear intention to involve the public in the temple's management or worship. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's interpretation, citing a previous judgment emphasizing factors indicating a public endowment, such as the installation of idols in a separate building and the presence of appointed pujaris. The court found that the family's limited role as shebaits, subject to external control by the panches, indicated public involvement in the temple's management, aligning it with the Act's definition of a religious trust. Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, deeming the temple a religious trust due to public interest. The court highlighted the public's association with the temple's management, emphasizing the role of outsiders in overseeing the shebaits and the provision for public participation in worship. The judgment set aside the High Court's decision, reinstating the Subordinate Judge's ruling and ordering the respondent to bear the appellant's costs.
|
