Case: His Holiness Sri Vishwothama Thirtha Swamiar Ofsode Mutt Vs. The State Of Mysore

dedication of a temple as a public temple, must be considered in their historical setting in such a case as the present; and dedication to the public is not to be readily inferred when it is known that the temple property was acquired by grant to an individual or family."It follows, therefore, that in the absence of good evidence that a temple is a private one, the mere fact that it is visited by a large number of persons among the Hindu public without any restraint for a number of years, will be good evidence of the fact that the temple had been dedicated to the Hindu public and was for its benefit.21. Reference may usefully be made to the case reported as Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore, 1958 SCR 895 : (AIR 1958 SC 255 ). In this case, a temple was founded for the benefit of Gowda Saraswath Brahmins, who managed it throughout. They were the followers of the Kashi Mutt. The head of that Mutt performed various religious ceremonies in the temple. It was alleged that persons who were not Gowda Saraswath Brahmins could not enter without the permission of the trustees. However, there was no instance in which such permission was refused. There was evidence that all communities had been freely admitted into the temple. It was contended that the free admission of all communities and there being no instance of any refusal of permission, led to the conclusion that the Hindu public generally had a right to worship in the temple. In considering this contention, it was said at page 907 (of SCR): (at pp. 263-264 of AIR):The law on the subject is well settled. When there is a question as to the nature and extent of a dedication of a temple, that has to be determined on the terms of the deed of endowment if that is available, and where it is not, on other materials legally admissible; and proof of long and uninterrupted user would be cogent evidence of the terms thereof. Where, therefore, the original deed of endowment is not available and it is found that all persons are freely worshipping in the temple without let or hindrance, it would be a proper inference to make that they do so as a matter of right, and that the original foundation was for their benefit as well. But where it is proved by production of the deed of endowment or otherwise that the original dedication was for the benefit of a particular community, the fact that members of other communities were allowed freely to worship cannot lead to the inference that the dedication was for their benefit as well. For, as observed in 67 Ind App 1: (AIR 1940 PC 7 ), it would not in general be consonant with Hindu sentiments or practice that worshippers should be turned away."There is no documentary evidence in this case for supporting the contention of the appellants that the temple was originally founded for the private use of Shri Madvacharya and his disciples. In the absence of such evidence, the long user of the temple by the Hindus in general, together with there being no instance of anybody having been refused permission, must lead to the conclusion and support the finding that the temple had been dedicated to the Hindus in general, and was for their benefit.22. Further, there is no evidence on record, oral or documentary, of course oral was not possible, of the fact that Shri Madvacharya had a Mutt of his own prior to his obtaining the idol of Shir Krishna which he installed in this temple. He is said to have set up eight different Mutts, each for one of his eight disciples. All these eight Mutts have particular names. No Mutt is named after Shri Madvacharya. Ramawami, J., has given good reasons for the view that Shri Madvacharya had no Mutt of his own.A primary Mutt associated with the founder himself must have an independent permanent head. There is no such Matathipathi or head of this so-called Mutt. One of the eight Swamis, the heads of the Asth Mutts, acts as head or manager of this institution for a period of two years. The absence of a head and this system of a head or manager being appointed by rotation, very clearly point to the conclusion that the institution in suit is neither a Mutt nor a temple appurtenant to a Mutt.23. In 1937, the Board of Commissioners for the Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras, passed an order under S. 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Act II of 1927), that this institution was not a temple as defined in that Act, but was a place of worship appurtenant to Shri Krishna Devaru Math, Shivalli Udipi Taluk, South Kanara District. It has been urged for the appellant that this order bars any further enquiry and a different conclusion under the Act with respect to the nature of this institution. The Courts below have held against this contention and, we think, rightly. The finding of the Board was, in their own words:"Our decision that the institution is appurtenant to a math and forms part of it can in no wise affect the rights of the deity to the properties owned by it and the rights of the Hindu public to worship direct, subject to the regulations prescribed by the Paryayam Swamiar for the time being. We hold that it is not a temple as defined in the Act, but it is a place of worship appurtenant to the Math."The finding that the Hindu public had a right to worship in this temple is sufficient to make the institution a temple within the definition of that term in the Act (Madras Act V of 1947), even if the temple be appurtenant to a Mutt. The Boards order, therefore, cannot affect the consideration of the question of the institution being a temple within the meaning of the definition in the Act.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]15. We agree with the view of the learned Judges of the High Court that the shrine in suit is a temple as defined in S. 2 (1) of the Act.16. The evidence on record is fully consistent with the findings of the Courts below that this temple is a place dedicated to the Hindu public and is used by them as a place of public religious worship. It is not disputed that a large number of pilgrims from all over the country visit this place, take part in the worship there, make offerings to the deity and receive the prasad. The institution also receives monetary aid from the State.It is clear from this extract that the various Swamis tour about the country realising contributions from the devotees for the expenses which each of them has to incur during the period of his pariyayam, that the expenses which he has to incur during the period are heavy. The expenses are met out of the income during the two years of his Pariyayam from the State aid and the offering of pilgrims and income of his own Mutt. The fact of raising contributions from the devotees resident in different parts of the country is clear proof of the fact that such devotees have a right to visit the temple and to worship there. If they have no such right, it is improbable that they would be visited by the Swamis for contributions.19. The fact that no instance of any pilgrim being refused permission to worship during the course of the centuries since the installation of the deity goes a long way in establishing and supporting the finding of the Court below that the institution has been held out as one for the benefit of the Hindu and that the Hindus in general have gone to it for worship in exercise of their right of worship and not on account of the permission, express or implied, of the Pariyayam Swami.20. It is true that the fact that a number of pilgrim visit the temple for worship regularly need not, in all cases, lead to the conclusion that the temple is a public one; but such a conclusion will not be arrived at only when there is good evidence about the temple being a privatefollows, therefore, that in the absence of good evidence that a temple is a private one, the mere fact that it is visited by a large number of persons among the Hindu public without any restraint for a number of years, will be good evidence of the fact that the temple had been dedicated to the Hindu public and was for itsis no documentary evidence in this case for supporting the contention of the appellants that the temple was originally founded for the private use of Shri Madvacharya and his disciples. In the absence of such evidence, the long user of the temple by the Hindus in general, together with there being no instance of anybody having been refused permission, must lead to the conclusion and support the finding that the temple had been dedicated to the Hindus in general, and was for their benefit.22. Further, there is no evidence on record, oral or documentary, of course oral was not possible, of the fact that Shri Madvacharya had a Mutt of his own prior to his obtaining the idol of Shir Krishna which he installed in this temple. He is said to have set up eight different Mutts, each for one of his eight disciples. All these eight Mutts have particular names. No Mutt is named after Shri Madvacharya. Ramawami, J., has given good reasons for the view that Shri Madvacharya had no Mutt of his own.A primary Mutt associated with the founder himself must have an independent permanent head. There is no such Matathipathi or head of this so-called Mutt. One of the eight Swamis, the heads of the Asth Mutts, acts as head or manager of this institution for a period of two years. The absence of a head and this system of a head or manager being appointed by rotation, very clearly point to the conclusion that the institution in suit is neither a Mutt nor a temple appurtenant to aCourts below have held against this contention and, we think,finding that the Hindu public had a right to worship in this temple is sufficient to make the institution a temple within the definition of that term in the Act (Madras Act V of 1947), even if the temple be appurtenant to a Mutt. The Boards order, therefore, cannot affect the consideration of the question of the institution being a temple within the meaning of the definition in the Act.