9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Registration of Society for Religious Purposes 2. Nature of the Trust: Religious vs. Secular 3. Public Temple on Leasehold Land 4. Scope of Public Endowment Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Point 1: Registration of Society for Religious Purposes The Society contended that it could not be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, for religious purposes as such purposes would not fall within 'charitable purposes' as mentioned in the Act. However, the court disagreed, citing historical precedents. The Allahabad High Court in Anjuman Islamia of Muttra v. Nasiruddin and the Madras High Court in Khaji Mohammed Hussain Sahib v. Masjiday Mehmood Jamait Managing committee had previously held that a society for religious purposes would be considered a charitable society under the Act. The court affirmed that charitable purposes in the context of the Act included religious purposes. Point 2: Nature of the Trust: Religious vs. Secular The court examined the history and activities of the Society, which had been conducting religious festivals since 1949. Despite the inclusion of social and cultural activities in the Society's aims and objects, the court found that the primary purpose was religious. Public donations were collected for religious festivals and temple construction. The court rejected the Society's argument that the temples were private and intended only for its members. The evidence showed that the temples were public, and the Society's primary concern was religious activities. Point 3: Public Temple on Leasehold Land The Society argued that a temple on leasehold land could not be a public temple. The court dismissed this argument, noting that the land was leased for 90 years, which was a sufficiently long period to support the establishment of a public temple. The court held that the nature of the land's tenure did not affect the public character of the temple. Point 4: Scope of Public Endowment The court reviewed the evidence, including public appeals for donations, which indicated that not only the temples but also the mandap, library, shop rooms, and other constructions were part of the religious endowment. The Deputy Commissioner had rightly held that the entire leasehold property, including these structures, formed the endowment. The court found that the High Court and the Assistant Commissioner had erred in limiting the public endowment to the temples alone. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 2546 of 1992 filed by the 'Hindu Public' and dismissed Civil Appeals Nos. 2547-48 of 1992 filed by the Society. The order of the Deputy Commissioner, which declared the entire leasehold property as part of the religious endowment and appointed non-hereditary trustees, was restored. The court held that the Society's primary purpose was religious, and the temples and other constructions on the leasehold land were part of the public endowment.
|
