Case: Bihar State Board Of Religious Trust Vs. Palat Lall And Another

right thereafter. The whole of the arrangement shows that the further looking after of the Thakurji was to be the concern of the family, and it was only under the nomination of the family that a particular person of the Vaishavanava belief was to be incharge after the demise of the members of the family who were to become the mutawallis after the death of the testator. It is obvious that in this family there was no male issue and, therefore, there was nobody to carry on worship and make arrangements for the seba-puja of the Thakurji, as had been done in the family. Some other kind of arrangement had to be made and this arrangement was made by the will. No more can be read into it than what is said there.8. Now, if it was intended that this should have been a public endowment, it is quite obvious that when the testator died, the testator would have thought of somebody from the public instead of the ladies who could not carry on the puja except through others. It was after his own death and his wives and sister were not available that a particular person was to be chosen for the seba-puja. There is no arrangement here that public were to look after or manage the Thakurji At no stage any intervention of the public is either intended or allowed by the will in question.9. Two other documents were brought to our notice, but they may be disposed of summarily. The first is a mortgage deed, ext, B, in which there is a recital about the property which was the subject of the endowment. But that document is silent about the nature of the endowment and is of no significance. The other document is a judgment of the Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax, ext. C, in which exemption was claimed in regard to income as we as set apart for charitable and religious trusts in terms of the trust deed. This is an attempt to show that the family regarded it as a public trust. What a person does with a view to claim exemption from income-tax or for that matter, agricultural income-tax, is not decisive of the nature of the endowment. The nature of the endowment is to be discovered only from the tenor of the document by which the endowment is created, the dealings of the public and the conduct and habits of the people who visit such a temple or Thakur Dwara. The claim to exemption was with a view to saving some income of the endowed property. It might have been motivated from other considerations and not that it was a public endowment.10. This brings us to the second case which was cited before us. But even in that case, a reference was made by the learned Judges to the earlier case and they have extracted a passage from the earlier judgment, in which it was observed that"when property is dedicated for the worship of a family idol, is it a private and not a public endowment, as the persons who are entitled to worship at the shrine of the deity can only be the members of the family, and that is an ascertained group of individuals. But where the beneficiaries are not members of a family or a specified individual then the endowment can only be regarded as public, intended to benefit the general body of worshippers".11. In the present case, the idol was a family idol and the worshippers had all along been the members of the family. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming on that score. The learned trial Judge mentions that very important and leading persons gave evidence in that behalf. In the judgment of the trial judge, a list is given which includes P. Ws. 3, 7, 12, 14, 15 and 16 of village Kusmari. In addition there are P. W. 17 who is an advocate of Sitamarhi, P. W. 6 who is a respectable witness, being a chemist, P. W. 8 who is also a pleader, and P. Ws 11 and 13 who are mokhtears and acquainted with Somari Kuer. These respectable persons had occasion to know the family of Chaudhury Lal Behari Singh, and therefore, were competent to speak on the fact that Shri Ram Janakiji were the family deities of Chaudhary Lal Behari Singh. In the case to which we were presently referring, the circumstances connected with the establishment of the temple were such that they could be only consonant with a public endowment. It was no doubt a private temple of which the sole proprietor was one Madrasi Swamij, but he, however, by the execution of the deed, decided to open the temple to the public. He was a man with no family and could not have installed the deity for the members of his family. It was pointed out in that case that the deed was of such a recent date that evidence of sub-sequent conduct would not alter nature of the endowment as determined from the deed and that the decision was on a question of fact. Even if we were to treat it as a question of law because whether the trust is public or private, partakes of both fact and law, and we are satisfied in the present case the evidence is entirely one-sided. There is not one circumstance to show that the endowment was public endowment, and this being the case, we do not see any reasons to differ from the decision already arrived at.12. On the whole, we have not been able to discover any reason why we should depart from the unanimous opinion of the High Court and the Court below. Both the Courts are agreed that the oral evidence as well as the documents indicate only a private trust and that there is nothing to show that the endowment enjoyed a public character at any time. The cases before this Court, which were cited earlier are easily distinguishable.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]11. In the present case, the idol was a family idol and the worshippers had all along been the members of the family. Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming on that score. The learned trial Judge mentions that very important and leading persons gave evidence in that behalf. In the judgment of the trial judge, a list is given which includes P. Ws. 3, 7, 12, 14, 15 and 16 of village Kusmari. In addition there are P. W. 17 who is an advocate of Sitamarhi, P. W. 6 who is a respectable witness, being a chemist, P. W. 8 who is also a pleader, and P. Ws 11 and 13 who are mokhtears and acquainted with Somari Kuer. These respectable persons had occasion to know the family of Chaudhury Lal Behari Singh, and therefore, were competent to speak on the fact that Shri Ram Janakiji were the family deities of Chaudhary Lal Behari Singh. In the case to which we were presently referring, the circumstances connected with the establishment of the temple were such that they could be only consonant with a public endowment. It was no doubt a private temple of which the sole proprietor was one Madrasi Swamij, but he, however, by the execution of the deed, decided to open the temple to the public. He was a man with no family and could not have installed the deity for the members of his family. It was pointed out in that case that the deed was of such a recent date that evidence of sub-sequent conduct would not alter nature of the endowment as determined from the deed and that the decision was on a question of fact. Even if we were to treat it as a question of law because whether the trust is public or private, partakes of both fact and law, and we are satisfied in the present case the evidence is entirely one-sided. There is not one circumstance to show that the endowment was public endowment, and this being the case, we do not see any reasons to differ from the decision already arrived at.12. On the whole, we have not been able to discover any reason why we should depart from the unanimous opinion of the High Court and the Court below. Both the Courts are agreed that the oral evidence as well as the documents indicate only a private trust and that there is nothing to show that the endowment enjoyed a public character at any time. The cases before this Court, which were cited earlier are easily distinguishable.In that case, emphasis was laid on two matters and they are decisive of the case we have here. The first no doubt was that the dedicator in that case had no male issue, and that it would be unusual for a person to tie up the property for the use of a deity without creating a public trust, but the second was that a ceremony of pratishtha (installation of the idol), which was equivalent to utsarg (dedication), was performed and, therefore, the idol itself became a public idol after the ceremonies. This is not the case here where an idol had existed from before as a family idol. In the earlier case of this Court the installation of the idol and the dedication were both done at the same time, and the installation was public. This, in our opinion, was a very cardinal fact in that case. This was emphasized not only by the trial Judge but also by the learned Judges of the High Court. The facts here are that the idol had been in the family for a number of years and only the family was doing thein the Thakur Dwara, and there is no mention any where that the public ever looked after this idol and were allowed a share in the worship as of right. Further, by the will also the author of the dedication did not make it clear that the public were to be admitted as of right thereafter. The whole of the arrangement shows that the further looking after of the Thakurji was to be the concern of the family, and it was only under the nomination of the family that a particular person of the Vaishavanava belief was to be incharge after the demise of the members of the family who were to become the mutawallis after the death of the testator. It is obvious that in this family there was no male issue and, therefore, there was nobody to carry on worship and make arrangements for theof the Thakurji, as had been done in the family. Some other kind of arrangement had to be made and this arrangement was made by the will. No more can be read into it than what is said there.