Case: Mahant Parichchan Das Vs. Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts and Others

appointment of a successor has been all through-out from guru to chela, the reigning mahant appointing or nominating his successor from amongst his chelas and the members of the public have had at no time any voice in the selection or nomination; (4) that the properties have always been recorded in the names of the mahants as proprietors and not in the name of the deities in the D registers, Khewats and Khatians; (5) that the mahants have been in pos session and management of the asthal and the properties all throughout; (6) that the mahants acquired properties from time to time in their own names as proprietors and never in the names of the deities or the asthal, without any objection at any time from any one and dealt with some of them through deeds of sales, mortgages, leases etc." Before this Court reliance was placed on the following circumstances to prove that the properties were impressed with a trust for religious or public purposes: "(1) the fact that the mahants were vaishnav bairagis who were life long celibates; (2) that sadhus and others were given food and shelter when they visited the temple; (3) that festivals and other important Hindu dates used to be celebrated; (4) that the members of the public came to the temple for darshan without any hindrance and as of right; (5) that in the deeds and wills, whereby reigning mahants appointed or nominated their successors, the properties were described as appertaining to the asthal, and that the temple being the dominant part of the asthal and maintained for the worship and puja of the presiding deities installed therein, the properties belonged to the temple, and therefore, they were properties of a trust for religious and charitable character. (6) The idols were installed partly on a pedestal and the temple was constructed on grounds separate from the residential quarters of the Mahant". It was held by this Court that everyone of the circumstances was equally consistent with the character of the trust being public or private and that the onus which was on the Bihar State Religious Trust Board to establish the public nature of the trust had not been discharged. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the findings of the High Court in the present case. The High Court found that there was no evidence to show who the founder of the Mutt was and who built the temples. It was also found that there was no evidence to show that the temp le in the village of Dumri was constructed on the land belonging to Gurdyal Singh or that the temple in the village of Maudah was constructed on land belonging to Brahmdas. It was found that several properties were acquired by various Mahants in their names instead of in the names of the idols but the acquisition of properties was for the purposes of the Asthal or Mutt. It was also found that from time to time gifts of land had been made by the villagers of Dumri. It was found that the Mahants had executed Kebalas for effecting repairs of the temples and had similarly executed deeds of mortgage. It was found that the people of the villages of Dumri and Maudah used to visit the temple without any let or hinderance and that the Mutt was so located as to suit the convenience of the villagers of both Dumri and Harpur. It was situated on the boundary of the two villages and was on a platform at a certain height, open on all sides with plenty of space around it. The temple in the Mutt had three doors with space for visitors. It was noticed by the High Court that the lands were held rent free in consideration of religious services.It is true as submitted by the learned counsel, many of the circumstances are neutral. The fact that members of the public were permitted to go to the temple without any hindrance might not be a circumstance which by itself would conclusively establish that the temple was a public temple in the absence of an element of right in the user of the temple by the public. Conversely the free use of the properties of the temple by the Mahant at a time when he was the sole manager of the temple and its properties would not necessarily lead to the inference that the temple was not a public temple. Patently there can be no simple or conclusive factual tests to determine the character of a trust. The totality of the circumstances and their effect must be considered. Here not only do we find that members of the public were allowed free access to the temple, they were evincing much greater interest in the institution as evidenced by the circumstances that several villagers had made gifts of land to it, a circumstance which would ordinarily be consistent with the nature of the institution being public and not private. Again, as pointed out by Venkatarama Ayyar, J., Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, (1) the situation of the temple would be an important circumstance in determining whether it was private or public. The High Court has pointed out that the temple was constructed outside the village on open land between the villages of Dumri and Harpur so as to be convenient to the villagers of both the villages. It was constructed on a high platform and was open on all sides with plenty or space around it to accommodate large number of people. Obviously the temple was located and constructed so as to attract and accommodate large number of villagers from the two villages. The donation of land by members of the public to the institution and the location of the temple at a place freely accessable and convenient to the public were circumstances which were absent in Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das (supra).

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

Explanation:
0[ds]Here not only do we find that members of the public were allowed free access to the temple, they were evincing much greater interest in the institution as evidenced by the circumstances that several villagers had made gifts of land to it, a circumstance which would ordinarily be consistent with the nature of the institution being public and not private. Again, as pointed out by Venkatarama Ayyar, J., Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, (1) the situation of the temple would be an important circumstance in determining whether it was private or public. The High Court has pointed out that the temple was constructed outside the village on open land between the villages of Dumri and Harpur so as to be convenient to the villagers of both the villages. It was constructed on a high platform and was open on all sides with plenty or space around it to accommodate large number of people. Obviously the temple was located and constructed so as to attract and accommodate large number of villagers from the two villages. The donation of land by members of the public to the institution and the location of the temple at a place freely accessable and convenient to the public were circumstances which were absent in Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das (supra). We are satisfied that, in the circumstances the High Court was right in holding that there was a trust of a public nature.