# BIHAR STATE BOARD OF HINDU RELIGIOUS TRUSTS v. BHUBNESHWAR PRASAD CHOUDHARY & ANR

- **Citation:** [1974] 3 S.C.R. 867
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-04-09
- **Bench:** K. K. Mathew, A. Alagiriswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bihar-state-board-of-hindu-religious-trusts-v-bhubneshwar-prasad-choudhary-anr-6100
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

B
BUrar Hindu Religious Trusrs Ac!, s. 2-Dedicatio1i of properties to idolWlien a religious trust.
·
·
c
D
E
The members of a family executed various documents the effect of which
was that the executants had completelv dive.stetl themselves of any title to or
interest in certain properties dedicated to a deity, and which, thereby, became
the propertie~ of the deity. The appellant called upon the respondent, who had
been appointed shebait and manager of all the dedicated properties, to furnish
returns and the respondent filed a suit contending that the temple was not a
religious trust within the meaning of the terms in s. 2 ( 1) of the Bihar Hindu
.Re1igious Trusts Act but that it was a private endowment. The trial court held
that the trust was one in which the public were interested. The High Court, in
appeal, took a contrary view.
Allowing_ the appeal to this Court,
JI.ELD : On the facts of this case the trust should be deemed to be religious
trust. as the DUblic are interested in it.
The temple Was sitriated within independent compound walls and not within
the residential precincts of the founders.
There was provision for the appoint~
anent· and dismissal of pujaris. The onlv right that the members of the family
had was to have a member of the f<imi!y as manager or shebait; but the
shebait was subject to the superinte.ndence and control of a body of outsiders
(t>anches) who were given the power to remove ·the shebait if he did not act
properly_
There could be no better indication of the fact that -the members of
the public were· associated with the management of the temple and interest
in its management was created in them, thus bringing the trust directly within
s. 2(g) of the Act. The ·tact that the provision regarding the panches was to
come into effect oilly after the death. of the executants of the deed, does not
affect the merits of the questiou. There was also provision for expenses over
faquirs, -Sadhus and occasional festivals. Since the endowment was in favour
of the idol itself proof of user by the public without interference would
be
cogent evidence that dedication was in favour of the public. (870 F-H; 871 C-D]
Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar [1956] S.C.R. 756, followed,
F
Bh'agwan Din v ... Har Saroop AJ.R. 1940' P.C. 7 and Ranzsaran DaJ v. Jai
Ram Das, A I.R. 1943 Pat. 135, explained.
CIVIL APPELLATE J\JRISDICTION :--Ovil Appeal No.
1871
of
f967.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 3rd May, 1965
of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original J;Jecree No. 345 of
G
1960.
H
D. Goburdhan, for the Appellant.
K. K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha, for Respondent No. 1.

## Text

'
867
A
BIHAR STATE BOARD OF HINDU RELIGIOUS TRUSTS
v.
BHUBNESHWAR PRASAD CHOUDHARY & ANR.
April 9, 1974.
[K. K. MATHEW AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.)
B
BUrar Hindu Religious Trusrs Ac!, s. 2-Dedicatio1i of properties to idolWlien a religious trust.
·
·
c
D
E
The members of a family executed various documents the effect of which
was that the executants had completelv dive.stetl themselves of any title to or
interest in certain properties dedicated to a deity, and which, thereby, became
the propertie~ of the deity. The appellant called upon the respondent, who had
been appointed shebait and manager of all the dedicated properties, to furnish
returns and the respondent filed a suit contending that the temple was not a
religious trust within the meaning of the terms in s. 2 ( 1) of the Bihar Hindu
.Re1igious Trusts Act but that it was a private endowment. The trial court held
that the trust was one in which the public were interested. The High Court, in
appeal, took a contrary view.
Allowing_ the appeal to this Court,
JI.ELD : On the facts of this case the trust should be deemed to be religious
trust. as the DUblic are interested in it.
The temple Was sitriated within independent compound walls and not within
the residential precincts of the founders.
There was provision for the appoint~
anent· and dismissal of pujaris. The onlv right that the members of the family
had was to have a member of the f<imi!y as manager or shebait; but the
shebait was subject to the superinte.ndence and control of a body of outsiders
(t>anches) who were given the power to remove ·the shebait if he did not act
properly_
There could be no better indication of the fact that -the members of
the public were· associated with the management of the temple and interest
in its management was created in them, thus bringing the trust directly within
s. 2(g) of the Act. The ·tact that the provision regarding the panches was to
come into effect oilly after the death. of the executants of the deed, does not
affect the merits of the questiou. There was also provision for expenses over
faquirs, -Sadhus and occasional festivals. Since the endowment was in favour
of the idol itself proof of user by the public without interference would
be
cogent evidence that dedication was in favour of the public. (870 F-H; 871 C-D]
Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar [1956] S.C.R. 756, followed,
F
Bh'agwan Din v ... Har Saroop AJ.R. 1940' P.C. 7 and Ranzsaran DaJ v. Jai
Ram Das, A I.R. 1943 Pat. 135, explained.
CIVIL APPELLATE J\JRISDICTION :--Ovil Appeal No.
1871
of
f967.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 3rd May, 1965
of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original J;Jecree No. 345 of
G
1960.
H
D. Goburdhan, for the Appellant.
K. K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha, for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byALAGIRISWAMI, J.-The question for decision in .this appeal is
whether the temple of Shree Maharaja Ram Janki Lacchuman Maha·
raj in the village of Mauza D(ogan in the State of Bihar is a religious
trust within the meaning of the term in section 2, clause (1) of the
Bibar Hinliu Religious Trusts Act, or a private endowment.
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1974) 3 S.C.R.
Two broth.,rs, Ram Adhikari Choudhary and Ram Lochan Choudhary, and Amir Prasad Choudhary, son of their brother, for hims.,lf and as guardian of Ramakant Prasad Choudhary, who were all
members of joint Hindu family executed OJl 17: 6 .1921 a samarpannama by which they dedicated certain properties to the above mentioned temple.
By that deed of dedication they completely divested
themselves of any interest in the properties except that Ibey and the
m_embers of their families were to be shebaits. By the same deed five
persons, who were absolute strangers to the family, were appointed
panches "to take the rendition of account of the income and ex?"ndi·
ture from the manager, shebait for the time being year after ye.ar
on the death of the executants .... J,f in the opiniort. of the said panches ·the manager and shebait for the time being be found (illeg)
and extravagant or there be any loss in respect of the income of the
dedicated _property or the dedicated property which is at present or
be acquired in future, in that case they should discharge the manager
shebait for the time being and (appoint) other deserving manager,
shebait, who be deemed according to the conditions mentioned ohove,
in his place ·from among the _members of the family of the_ executants."
The panches were given power to fill up vacancies in their ranks.
8
c
D
On 7·12-1928 Ram Adhikari Choudhary al0ne executed another
samarpannnma endowing some further properties in favour of the
temple, containing similar terms as in the earlier samarpannama; but
in place of five panches mentioned in the earlier deed he appointed
a fresh set of five panches, of whom only one belonged to the earlier
set of panches. In this deed also it was provided that "if any future
E
shebait fails to manage the dedicated properties, arrange ragbhog to
the aforesaid deities properly, show negligence, spoil the property,
and incur (un)-necessary expenses, the said panches will be competent to dismiss the said shebait and appoint another one out of the
members of the family of me, the executant, who happens to be
holli!st and capable."
On 14. 7 .1934 Ram Adhikari Choudhary executed aaother deed
called 'ekrarnama' referring to the fact that he had adopted Bhagwat
Prasad Choudhary, the present first respondent, and that he had
been appointed shebait and manager c~ all the dedicated properties
covered by the earlier two samarpanna~as. He also directed that
"the stipulations contained irl th• sllmarpannama dated the 7th December, 1928 in respect of maintenance of account qf income
and
expenditure of the dedicated property, shalt hold good in respect of
the management of the dedicated property and maintenance of the
account of income a'nd expenditure."
He mentioned nothing about
the panches mentioned in the earlier deed, but provided that "as (to)
the appoidtment of shebaits in future, the practice to be followed
will be that the shebait in office shall be fully competent to (appoint)
during his life time or that after him he who amongst his sons be
alive and most capable shall be appointed shebait of the said deities
one after another. In case there be no male issue in the family of
p
G
H
I
f
f
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
'BIHAR RELIGIOUS TRUSTS v, B, p, CHOUDHARY (Alagiriswami, I.) 869
th~ shebait in office, firstly, amongst the male issue or in case there
b~ no capable malt amongst the children of th~ aforesaid persons,
the shebait in office shall be competent to appoint a shebait amongi;t
the children of my cousin (father's brother's sons) brothers, deemed
to be capable.
But the shebait in office is and shall nof be competent to appoint a shebail from the family of other persons."
It is unnecessary for the purpose of this case to go into the ques;-
tion whether by executing the samarpannama of 7.12.1928 and ek·
rarnama of 14.7, 1934 Ram Adhikari Choudhary was competent to
change the provisions of 1921 document. It is not even clear whether .by this document he had intended to do away with the provisions
contained in the earlier documents regarding the panches and their
powers.
Be that as it may, we are of opinion that the main point
regarding :ill these documents is the fact that the executants had completely divested themselves of any title to or interest in the dedicated
properties which thereby became the properties of the deity.
The
only power which the members of the family thereafter had was to
be shebaits arij managers of the temple.
The Subordinate Judge who tried this suit considered that the
1921 document created a trust in which the public were interested.
But in this to some extent he seems to have been inffuenced by a
wrong reading of section 2(g) (i) of the Act, especially the words
"to participate in any religious or charitable ministration under such
trust".
He mistook the word 'ministration' to b'e 'administration'.
The difference between the woiqs would make all the difference as
to whether any member of the public ccr.ild be said to be interested
in the religious trust We have called for and perused the copy of
the Act as printed in the official publicatio11 and we find that the
word used is 'tninistration' and not 'administration'.
The question
for decision in this case' therefore, has to be decided on the grounds
other than the supposed presence of the word 'administration' in
section 2(g)(i).
The learned Judges of the High Court on the other hand took the
view that the mere fact that the temple was situated within independent
compound walls, though near the house of the founders, could not by
itself indicate that the temple was meant. for public purposes. They
further took the view that "the cost over faqirs, sadhus and the
occasional festivals would be ancillary to the main purpose, that is,
for puja of the deity," As regards the panches mentioned in the documents they were of opinion that they had no opportunity to function
or take any part in the affairs of the temple and the trust properties,
and that there was nothing to indicat~ that the founder or founders of
the trust intended that members of the public should be associated with
the managementof the temple and the trust properties and the puja.
They also held that "the mere fact that some other members of the
public might be attending festivals like Ram Navami. Janmashtami etc.
does not justify the inference that the trust or temple was created for
the benefit or worship of the public at large or of some considerable
portion of it"
870
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1974) 3 S.C.R.
We find ourselves unable to agree with the learned Judges of the
High_ Court. We are of opinion that the judgment of the High Court
proceeds from failure to appreciate the effect of the judgment of this
Court in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar (1956 SCR 756). In that case
the dedication of the properties was not as complete and as categorical as in the present case. Only in the absence of male issue, the entire
immovable property was ·to stand endowed in the name of the deity.
Half of the income from the properties was to be taken by the two
wives of the testator for their maintenance during their lifetime. If a
son was born to the testator then the properties were to be divided
between the son and the temple. A committee of four persons was
appointed to look after the management of the temple and its proper ..
ties, and of these, two were not the relations of the testator. The committee "may appoint the testator's nephew as Mutawalli by their unanimous opinion''. The documents in the present case are only slightly
different in that they provide- for the members of the. family being
shebaits. But the panches are all outsiders. In Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar this Court referred to certain facts as indicating that the endowment is to the public :
"Firstly, there is the fact that the idol was installed not
within the precincts of residential quarters but in a separate
building constructed for that very purpose on a vacant site.
And as pointed out in Delroos Banoo Begum v. Nawab Syud
Ashgur Ally Khan('), it js a factor to be taken into account
in deciding whether a11 endo:,vment is private or public,
whether the place of worship is located inside a private house
or a public building. Secondly, it is admitted that some of the
idols are permanently installed on a pedestal within
the
temple precincts. That is more consis.tent with the endowment being public rather than private. Thirdly, the puja in
the temple is performed by an ar~haka appointed from time
to time."
In the present case the first factor is present. There is no evidence
about the second. There is also provision for appointment and dimissal of pujaris. Though there is no evidenc_, in.this case, as in that case,
that the temple was built at the request of the public we do not think
that it makes much difference. We are particularly of the view that as
the only right which the family had was to have a member of the
family as a manager or shebait and the shebait was subjed to superintendence and control by a body of 011tsiders, who were given the
power to remove the shebait if he did not act properly, it is decisive
of the question as to the public character c( the temple. There· could
be no better indication of the fact that the members of the public were
associated with the management of the iemple and interest in its
management was created in them, thus bringing the matter directly
within clause (g) of section 2 of the Act. The fact that this provision
regarding the panches was to col1le into ~!feet only after the death of
the executants of the deed, does not affect the merits of the question.
We are also of opinion that the learned Judges of the High Court were
(I) 1875 15 B:n. LR. 167, 186.
\
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
·,
A
l!
c
D
BIHAR RELIGIOUS TRUSTS v. B. P. CHOUDHARY (Alagiriswami, !.) 871
not correct in their view that the fact that members of the public took
part in the worship in the temple and the provision for faqirs etc. was
of no signifjcance, and in rejying, upon the decision of the Privy Council
in Bhagwan Din v. Har Saroop (AIR 1940 PC 7) for this purpose. In
that case the properties were granted not in favour of an idol or temple,
but in favour of a private illdividual., who was maintaining a temple,
and his heir~. The contention in that case was that subsequent to the
grant the family of the grantee must be held to ·have dedicated the
temple to the. public for purposes of worship and it was this contention
that was repel!ed' by the Privy Cou:ncil by observing that as the grant
was initially to-mrcindividual, a plea that it was subsequently dedicated
by the family to .the public requi.red to be ciearly made out and it was
not made out rrierely by showing that the public was allowed.to worship
at the temple. But in the present case, as in the case pf Deoki Na;ldan
v. Murlidhar, the endowm_ent is in favour o[ the idol itself and in such
circumstances proof of user by the public without interference would
be cogent evidence that dedication was in favour of the public. The
decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Ramsara11
Das v. Jai Ram Das (AIR 1943 Pat 135) tha.t "a mere provision for
the service of sadhus, occasional guests and \vayfarers in a dedication
to an idol does not render the dedication substantially for public purpose" must be understood in the background of that case where the
properties originally stood in the names o'f various mahants and. the
property was to be held by the grantee generation after generation and
the Court held that the gift was to. the mahant personally.
We arc, therefore, satisfied that on the facts of this caso the trust
should be deemed to be a religious trust as the public are interested
E
in it. The appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the High
Court set aside, restoring the judgment of the learned Subordimte
Judge. The 1st respondent will pay t\te costs of the appcll.ant. The
C.M.~. No. 3132 of 1973 is allowed.
V.P .• S.
Appeal allowed.
. I