# Mahanth Ramdhan Puri v. President, S.B.R.T. Patna, ~955 B.L.l.R - **Citation:** [1974] 1 S.C.R. 481 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1973-08-23 - **Case number:** Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 1181 c and 1182 of 1969 - **Bench:** With connected appeals) August 23, 1973 Ih. R. Khanna, A. Alagiriswami - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mahanth-ramdhan-puri-v-president-s-b-r-t-patna-955-b-l-l-r-5996 - **Pages:** 8 ## Headnote Bihar Hindu Religiol~ ,Trusts Act, 1950, ss. 43 a11d 67-Scope of. 481 Section 43(1) of the Bihar Hindu Re.1igious Trusts Act, 1950, as amended in 1956, provides, that all dispu'.es as to whether any immovable property is or is not.. a trusl property shall be inquired into by the authority appointed by the State Governn1ent; and s. 67 of the Act provides that if a trustee fails without re.nsonable ca11se to comply with certain matters or furnish certain i1articulars which he is required or called upon to furnish under the Act, he shall be Hable to punishment. The respondents, who were called upon to furnish certain particulars -falling under s. 67, in relation to certain temples, contended, that there was no trust, that s. 43 provides a machinery f'Jr deciding whether there is a trust and who is the trustee of the trust, and that a decision under the section was a condition rrecrdent to lhe launchin~ of a prosecution under s. o7. The High Court accepted the contention. Allowing the appeals to this Court. HELD : Neither expressly nor by necessary implication, s. 43 or any other provision of the \ct bars the prosecution under s. 67 without a decision under a;. 43. r4H6 Bl ln a prosecution under s. 67, it is open to th: persons prosecuted to contend that there is no trust and that they are n'Jt trustees. It would then be for the prosecution to make out all the ingredients of the offence and the two mai• ingredients are : ( 1) that there is a trust and (2) that the person prosecuted is a trustee. ln that case, it will be for the Court before which the prosecutioR has been instituted to decide the questi'Jns on the material placed before it. There ls nothing preventing the criminal courts from going into these question!I. [484H-485CI Under s. 43, the only question that can b! decided is whether any immovable property is a trust property or not. Under the section as it originally stood, the Board of religious trusts or any person interested in a religiou~ lrust may, at any time, apply to the Distrlc.t Judge for a declaration that any immovable property is trust property; and under the section, as amended i• -1956, all dispurt·s as to whether any immovable property is trust property, shall .be inquired into by the authority appointed. But, in .either case, the only q1 1~s tion that can b~ decided under the secti'Jn is whether any immovable property is or is not trust property. The _section, b!fore or after amendment. does not provide for a decision as to whether there is any religi!)us trust or whether any pei>on is a trustee. [485G·486B] It is p0ssible that, when a question is raised before the authority under the section whether a certain immovable · property is trust property or not, the person i'1tl":-este1l mi~ht contend that the-e was no tru~t at all. In ~uch a cas:!. the authority, for the purpose of deciding whether the property is trust .P_ro· oorty. will hav-:! to decide whe•her there is a. trust at a·H. ~u~ .so~h a decisi.on is only for the purpose of decidir:.6 whether 1t has the )unsd1ction t_? decide whether the property in question is trust property. ]~.it wrongly dec1~es tlt~t there is a trus~ and that it has iuriscfi.:tion. such a deCJSton can. be quesuoned 1n a civil court. In any case, under the section, it cannot be decided whether any body is a trustee. Thus, the only question that can be decided under s. 43 1~ 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 19P· ] 1 s.c.R. irrelevant to the case of the prosecution in respect of many of the offeiiccs ~ mentioned in-s. 67. [4S5D-Gl Mahanth Ramdhan Puri v. President, S.B.R.T. Patna, ~955 B.L.l.R. 665, Bihar State:..Religious Trust Board v.,Mahanth Jaleshwar Gir & Ors., l.L.R. (1967) 46 Patna 23, B. S. Board of l"T. v, R.R. Gir, !969 B.L.LR: 63, S. s. Clwubey v. B.H.R.T. Board, [19691 B.L.J.R. 74 and Parmeshwan I'd. Singh v. The Bihar State Board of Hindu Religious Trusts, 1968 P · L. J. R · 386, ;pproved. B Mahan! Ranl Saroop Dasii v. S. P. Sa/1i, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 583, explained. ## Text A c 0 E f G H ' • PRESIDENT OF THE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST & ANR. ~. NALINI CHOUDHARI" & ORS. (With connected appeals) August 23, 1973 IH. R. KHANNA AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.] Bihar Hindu Religiol~ ,Trusts Act, 1950, ss. 43 a11d 67-Scope of. 481 Section 43(1) of the Bihar Hindu Re.1igious Trusts Act, 1950, as amended in 1956, provides, that all dispu'.es as to whether any immovable property is or is not.. a trusl property shall be inquired into by the authority appointed by the State Governn1ent; and s. 67 of the Act provides that if a trustee fails without re.nsonable ca11se to comply with certain matters or furnish certain i1articulars which he is required or called upon to furnish under the Act, he shall be Hable to punishment. The respondents, who were called upon to furnish certain particulars -falling under s. 67, in relation to certain temples, contended, that there was no trust, that s. 43 provides a machinery f'Jr deciding whether there is a trust and who is the trustee of the trust, and that a decision under the section was a condition rrecrdent to lhe launchin~ of a prosecution under s. o7. The High Court accepted the contention. Allowing the appeals to this Court. HELD : Neither expressly nor by necessary implication, s. 43 or any other provision of the \ct bars the prosecution under s. 67 without a decision under a;. 43. r4H6 Bl ln a prosecution under s. 67, it is open to th: persons prosecuted to contend that there is no trust and that they are n'Jt trustees. It would then be for the prosecution to make out all the ingredients of the offence and the two mai• ingredients are : ( 1) that there is a trust and (2) that the person prosecuted is a trustee. ln that case, it will be for the Court before which the prosecutioR has been instituted to decide the questi'Jns on the material placed before it. There ls nothing preventing the criminal courts from going into these question!I. [484H-485CI Under s. 43, the only question that can b! decided is whether any immovable property is a trust property or not. Under the section as it originally stood, the Board of religious trusts or any person interested in a religiou~ lrust may, at any time, apply to the Distrlc.t Judge for a declaration that any immovable property is trust property; and under the section, as amended i• -1956, all dispurt·s as to whether any immovable property is trust property, shall .be inquired into by the authority appointed. But, in .either case, the only q1 1~s tion that can b~ decided under the secti'Jn is whether any immovable property is or is not trust property. The _section, b!fore or after amendment. does not provide for a decision as to whether there is any religi!)us trust or whether any pei>on is a trustee. [485G·486B] It is p0ssible that, when a question is raised before the authority under the section whether a certain immovable · property is trust property or not, the person i'1tl":-este1l mi~ht contend that the-e was no tru~t at all. In ~uch a cas:!. the authority, for the purpose of deciding whether the property is trust .P_ro· oorty. will hav-:! to decide whe•her there is a. trust at a·H. ~u~ .so~h a decisi.on is only for the purpose of decidir:.6 whether 1t has the )unsd1ction t_? decide whether the property in question is trust property. ]~.it wrongly dec1~es tlt~t there is a trus~ and that it has iuriscfi.:tion. such a deCJSton can. be quesuoned 1n a civil court. In any case, under the section, it cannot be decided whether any body is a trustee. Thus, the only question that can be decided under s. 43 1~ 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 19P· ] 1 s.c.R. irrelevant to the case of the prosecution in respect of many of the offeiiccs ~ mentioned in-s. 67. [4S5D-Gl Mahanth Ramdhan Puri v. President, S.B.R.T. Patna, ~955 B.L.l.R. 665, Bihar State:..Religious Trust Board v.,Mahanth Jaleshwar Gir & Ors., l.L.R. (1967) 46 Patna 23, B. S. Board of l"T. v, R.R. Gir, !969 B.L.LR: 63, S. s. Clwubey v. B.H.R.T. Board, [19691 B.L.J.R. 74 and Parmeshwan I'd. Singh v. The Bihar State Board of Hindu Religious Trusts, 1968 P · L. J. R · 386, ;pproved. B Mahan! Ranl Saroop Dasii v. S. P. Sa/1i, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 583, explained. Mst, Chu.n1pa Sahu v. The Bi/Jar Religious Tr!J.Sl Bdart! Patna·, 24"8-1961 of the Patna High Court, overruled. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2029 ©! 1970. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated D.:c;;mb;;~ .22, 1969 of the t'atna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 571of1969 and 1...1v1l Appeals Nos. 41 & 42 of 1970. Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 22, 1969 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 1181 c and 1182 of 1969. n L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of 'India and D. Goburd/Iun, .for the appellants (in all the appeals). S. C. Sinha and Rathin Das, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. 2029 of 1970). S. K· Sinha, K. K~ Sinha and B. B. Sinlla, !or the respondent (in E appeal No. 42 of 1970). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAM!, J. These three appeals arise out of the comu1on judgment of the High Court of Patna in Civil writ jurisdiction Case No. 571 of 1969 and Criminal Miscellanceous Cases Nos. 1181 and 1182 F.· of 1969. The question that arises for decisicn in all the three appeals is the same: whether a decision under section 43 of the Bihar Hindu ~eligious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called the Act) is a condition precedent to the launching of a prosecution under section 6 7 of. that Act. The facts necessary may first be stated. The 1st respondent in the Civil Appeal No. 2029 of 1970 was called upon by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts to submit a statement 1elating to the Girl Gobardhan Mandir of Bana Nava Gram on pain of prosecution under section 67. Thereupon he filed the writ, out of which this appeal arises, alleging that there was no temple of Giri Gohardhan but only·the idol of Giri Gobardhan which was his family idol and the income of the land was not the income derived from the properties of the idol. He further contended that there was no trust of any kind relating to the properties and that no member of the public had any access to the idol nor was any offering made bv them and prayed for the notices issued hy the Board to be quashed. The respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1970 who was prosecuted under • A B c 0 E F \ G H Bll!AR RELIGIOUS TRUST v. NALINI CHOUDHARI (Alagiriswa'lli, J.) 48l section 67 of the Act claimed that he was the sole shebait of a tempi~ in village Basarhia in the district of Darbhanga. He also did not sd1mit the account demanded under the Act on the ground that the property of which the return was sought was not trust property and that without a declaration under section 43 of the Act he could not be prOIOecnted under section 67. The respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1970, who was similarly prosecuted claimed that the temple in villa~e Basarhia in the district of Pumea of which he was the sole shebait was within the family dwelling house with which the public have no concern and that he was, therefore, not liable to render an account of the income and expenditure. His other contention was also simjlar to the contention of the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1970. The High Court allowed the three petitions and quashed the notice issued as well as the .prosecutions. The Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts J3oard has filed these appeals. Section 67 (l) of the Act reads: "If a tustee fails without reasonable cause, the burden of proving which shall be upon him, to comply with any order or direction made or issued under clause (i), (o) (q) of sub-section (2) of section 28 or under section 58, to comply with the provisions of sub-section ( 1) of section 59, sub-section (l) of section 60, section 61 or section 62, or to furnish any statement, annual account, estimate, explanation or other document or information relating to the religious trust of which he is the trustee, which he is required or called upon to furnish under any of the provisions of this Act, he shall be punishable with fine which may extend, in the case of the first offence, to two hundred rupees, and, in the case of the second or any subsequent offence, to five hundred rupees and, in default of payment of the fine, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or one year, as the case may be." Under section 59 of the Act, within six months from the date of the publication in the Official Gazette of the names of the President and members of the first Board, the trustees of every religious trust existing on the said date should furnish to the Board a stateμient in."' the prescribed form containing the prescribed particulars in res~t of the trust of which he is the trustee. Under section 60, the trustee of every religious trust has to prepare a budget of such trust and send a copy thereof to the Board. Under section 59 and 60 there is no obligation cast on the Board to give a notice to the. trustee calling upon him to furnish the statement contemplanted under s.59 or the budget under s.60. The duties cast noon the trustee under those sections are irrespective of the fact whether a notice has been issued or not. The fact that notices were issued does not make anv difference to this .position. Tf for a failure to comply with the provisions of ss. 59 and 60 a prosecution lies under s.67. the prosecution cannot fail, on the ground that no notice w:is issued. Of course, it is ooen to ~ person who apprehends that action might be taken against him for his SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974] 1 S.C.R. failure to comply with. the provisions of either section 59 or 60, or on whom a notice is served calling on him to comply with the provisions of those sections to approach the ordinary civil court for a declaration that there is no trust and that he is not a trustee and therefore he cannot he called upon to comply with the .provisions of ~s. 59 and 60 or prosecuted for failure to do so. If without a notice a prosecution is launched under section 67 it is open to the persons prosecuted to contend before the court that there is no trust and that they are not trustees. Jn that case it would be for the prosecution to make out all the ingredients of the offence to the satisfaction o[ the court before which the prosecution is launched. The two main ingredients would be: that there is a trust and that the person prosecuted is a trustee. Under the Act no machinery has been set up for deciding the question whether there is a trust and whether any person is a trustee of such a trust. The whole basis of the contention of the respondents in these three appeals which has in substance been accepted by the High Court of Patna is that section 43 provides such a machinery. It is to be noticed that there is nothing in section 67 which bars a prosecution under that section. Therefore, the question that would arise is whether by necessary implication section 43 would bar any prosecution under section 67. Section 43 as it stood originally read: "43. (l) The Board or any person interested in a religious trust may. at any time. apply in the prescribed m~n ner to the District Judge for a declarat10n that any 11nmovablc property is trust propetry." This section was amended in 1956 to read ~s follows : "43. (1) All disputes as to whether any. i~mo~able property is or is not a trust property s~all be mqmred m!o, either on its own motion or on appbcatJon, by the· authonty appointed in this behalf by the State Governm~nt, by notification, in the Official Gazette." It would be noticed that under the original section as well as under the section as amended in 1956 the only question that can be decided is whether any immovable property is a trust prope_rty or not. It does not provide for a decision as to whether there is any rel101ous trust as defined under clause (1) of section 2 of the Act, or whether any person is a trustee or not. It does not even provide for a decision on the question whether any property is a trust property. It provides only for decision on the question whether any immovable property is a trust property. It is quite conceivable that a trust has no immovable property at all but only movaule property, or as happens more often the trust prooery may consist of both movable and immovable property. Therefore, a decision under section 43 will not be a final or a complete adjudicatioQ. as. regards the question whether there· is any trust or whether any person is a trustee. It stands to reason, therefore, that under section 43 there cannot be a conclusive decision which will provide an answer to a prosecution under section 67. Furtliennote in any prosecution under every one A B c u E F G H A B c D E F G H B!HAR RELIGIOUS TRUST V. NALINI CHOUDHARI (A/agiriswami, l.) 485 of the sections mentioned in section 67 the question that arises is whether the person prosecuted is a trustee. And section 43 does not provide for a decision of that question. The only question that caa be decided under that section is irrelevant to the case of prosecution in respect of many of the offences mentioned i• section 67. Therefore, when a question arises in a prosecution under section 67 whether any trust is a trust ooming within the ambit of the Act and whether the p~rson prosecuted is a trustee, it is a question which the court before which the prosecution has been instituted has to decide on the material placed before it. Of course the prosecution canoot succeed unless both these pcopositions are established. There is nothing preventing the criminal court from going into both these questions. Pi. decisioa under section 43 is not a decision by a court. It is only a decision by a tribunal and it is subject to the results of a suit to be instituted under that section within 90 days of the decision of the tribunal. Though originally the tribunal consisted of a District Judge. it was nonetheless only a tribunal. Normally when a power is conferred on an ordinary court of the land to decide. a question it attracts all the procedure that attaches to the proceedings of ~he court on which the power is conferred including right of appeal, revision etc. Such was not the position even before 1956. That question no longer arises because of the amendment made in 1956. The position is now beyond doubt that it is only a tribunal that determines cases under section 43. When the question is raised before the authority under section 43 whether a certain immovable property is trust property or not the person interested might say that there is no trust and the property is not the trust property. In such a case the ;rntrority m1y for the purpose of deciding whether the property is trust property have to decide whether there is a trust at all. But such decision is only for the purpose of deciding whether it has the jurisdiction to decide whether the property in question is trust property. It is true that a subordinate tribunal cannot by a wrong decision on the question of jurisdiction assume jurisdiction which it does not possess. If it wrongly decides that it has jurisdiction on the ground that there is a trust, such a decision can be questioned before the ordinary civil courts. But in many cases the person interested may be con•ent with merely saying that the ~roperty in questio~ is not trust property and not raise the other question whether there 1s a trust at all. In any case under this section it cannot be decided whether anybody is a trustee, The High Court seems to have thoμght that the fact that under ~ection ~~· as it originally stood, the Board or apy person intere0teJ in a rel~gious trust may at any time apply to the District Judge for a declarati~n a~1d u~der the section as amended in 1956 all disputes sha~I be mqurred mto by the authority appointed in this behalf makes a difference to the question whether a prosecu•ion under s.67 was b_arred Without a decision under s. 43. It does no such thing. In either case the only question that can be decided under that section is whether any i~movable property is or is not trust property. E'Ven under the section as amended in 1956 questions as regards any trust property, both movable and immovable, which includes the question 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1974 J 1 s.c.R. whether there is a trust at all cannot be decided. In any case the question as to whether. a person is a trustee or not cannot be decided either under the original section or under the section as amended 1n 1956. And that is the crux of the question in a prosecution und~r section 67. We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court was in error in proceeding on the basis that without a decision under section 43 no prosecution can be launched under section 67. Neither expressly nor by necessary implication section 43 or any other provision of the Act bars the prosecution under section 67 without a decision under section 43. The Full Bench had taken a view contrary to that taken by earlier decisions of the same court. In Mahanth Ramdhan Puri v. President, S.B.R.T., Patna( 1) it was obs~rved: "If ia every case where a person raises a claim that the property is not trust property the Board is bound to stay its hands by reason of such denial, then the Act will be unworkable an'.! meaningless ...... Section 43 of the Acfis merely an ena:,ling section ...... Tt should be obvious that section 43 can have no application if the trust is not a religious trust at all. Section 43 applies only when the Act applies. If the Act does not apply, section 43 can have no application. It is, therefore, unreasonabl)' :o infer from section 43 that any denial by a person that the property is not trust pr®perty will at onco oust the jurisdiction of the Board." In Bihar State Religious Trust Board v. Mahanth Jaleshwar Gir & Ors.( 2) is was pointed out: "Under the provisions of sectio.q 43(1) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950, disputes as to whether a particula:· property, and that too only when it is immovable, is or is not a property appertaining to a public trust can be enquired into by the authority. That is to say, if the dispute relates to any particular immovable property or properties forming part of or appertaining t• a public trusl, such a dispute shall be enquired in'o by the authority either of its own motion or on application of any person. In terms, if a dispute is in regard to the nature of the trust itself, section 43 is not attracted. Nobody c~n approach the authority; either the State Board of Religious Trusts, Bihar, or the trustee or any· other person, for a declaration that a particular endowment or trust or institution is not a public trust but a priva•e one. nor can anybody file an application before the authority for a mere declaration that it. is .a public trust. It may well be that when question is raised before the authority in regard to a particular immovable property that it appertains to a public trust. by way of answer to such a claim, the person or the trustee may raise a dispute that even though the parti- (I) 1955 B. L. J. R. 665, (2) I. L. R. [1967] 46 Patna 23 A B c D E F 0 H B c D E F G H BIHAR RELIGIOUS TRUST <. NALINI CHOUDHARI (Ahviriswami, J.) "' T cular property appertains to the trust, the trust is not a pub- ! ic one, and, therefore. the property should be r ~!d as not appertaining to a public trust. Inddentally and ind~rec!ly, in such a case the question may anse for the determination of the authority and, on determination of'this question, the ultimate declaration which the au1hority wo,u!d be competent to give under sub.section (3) of section 43 will be that t~e property is or is not trust property. ~ut unless t~e determ1na'ion of the character of the trust 1s mvolved mc1denta!ly. and indirectly, the authority, either within the terms of subsection (I) or as made expressly clear by the terms of subsection ( 3), has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate purely in regard to the nature of the trust and 'to give a declaration as to whether it is a public trust or a private trust." and it was held that the non-determination of the question as to the· iiaturc of the trust by the authority under section 43 is not a bar to the launching of. the prosecution under section 67. In B.S. Board of R.T. v. R.R. Gir( 1) it was held that: ''the scope of Sec. 43 is that if a dispute was in regard to the nature of the trust itself, Sec. 43 was not at all attracted and th~t neither the Board nor the Trustee_s nor any other person could approach the Authority for a declaration that a particular endowment or trust or institution was ~-public trust and not a private one or vice-versa. On the scope and amhit of Sec. 43 it was neither open to the special officer, Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board. Patna, who approached the authocity for any such declaration or order, nor was it competent for the authority to make the impugned order." In S. S. Choubey v. B.H.R.T. Board(') a Divsiion Bench follow· ed the earlier decision in Mahant/z Jaleshwar's case (supra). It is interesting to note that Justice Choudhary, who was a member of this Bench was also the Judge who decided the case in Cr. Rf'Vision No. 170 of 1961 (Mosst. Champa Sahu v. The Bihar Religious Trust Board, Patna) disposed of on 24th August, 1961, the 011\y decision of that court which appealed to the Full Bench. We must point o•t, however, that this decision is based on a plain mis-reading of the decision of this Court in Mahont Ram Saroop Dasii v. S. P. Sahi('). In that decision this Court held that the Act does not apply ·to private trusts. There was an earlier decision obtained in First Appeal No. 10 of 1941 that the properties under consideration there did not constitute a public· trust and tl!is Court therefore pointed out that as Jong as the declaration made by the High Court in First Appeal No. 10 of 1941 stands and i.n the absence of some evidence to the contrary, the · appe.llant wa3 en11tled to say that the properties did not constitute a oubhc trust and. the Act and its provisions did not apply to it. The further observat10ns of this Court did not say that a decision under section 43 was a pre-requisite to a prosecution under section 67. This (I) 1969 B. L. J. R. 63. !2) 1969 B. L. J. R. i4. (3) [1959] (Supp.) 2 S. C.R. 583 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS H974] 1 s.c.R. Court left it open to the respondents therein, i.e. the Board, to take such steps as may be available to them in law to get it determined by •. competent authority that the trust in question is' a public trust. The decision in Parmeshwari Pd. Singh v. The Bihar State Board of Hindu Religious Trusts(!) also followed the earli