Case: Charity Commissioner, Bombay Vs. Administrator of The Shringeri Math &amp; Its Properties

worship within the meaning of the definition in Section 2 (9) of the Act." He observed:"There is no dispute that there are idols of Shri Adya Shankaracharya and Shri Dattatraya in this institution and worship of those idols is carried on there. The festivals which are held and which are attended by the public who are invited on such occasions are the Jayantis of Shri Shankaracharya and the deity of Shri Dattatraya. In this behalf the printed invitations (Exhibits 12/29, 12/30 and 12/31) may be perused. There is also day-to-day worship of these deities which a carried on by the Pujaris."9. He further observed:"Considering from this point of view, this place would be a place of religious worship and there is no dispute that at any rate it is appurtenant to the main institution or the Muth at Shringeri."He further held that "this institution or Foundation at Nasik is admittedly a Branch of the Math at Shringeri which is founded by Adya Shankaracharya and this Branch would partake of the nature of the main or Principal Institution at Shringeri." He accordingly held that it would be idle to contend that this institution at Nasik would not come within even what is called the "inclusive portion" of the definition of "Math" enacted in Section 2 (9) of the Act.10. The learned counsel for the appellant cosntends that the Nasik Math is an independent Math within Section 2 (9) of the Act and, therefore, covered by the provisions of the Act, at any rate, even if the Nasik Math is on adjunct of or dependent upon the principal math at Shringeri, it is covered by the Act.11. In Maharajkumari Umeshwari Kuer v. State of Bihar, Petn. No. 405 of 1955, D/- 15-12-1960. (SC) while considering the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (Bihar Act I of 1951), Gajendrgadkar, J., as he then was speaking for the Court, observed:"On behalf of the petitioner the learned Attorney General has contended that as a result of our decisions in the group of cases to which we have already referred it is now established that before the Act can apply two conditions must be satisfied; first, that the religious trust or the institution itself must be in Bihar, and second, part of its property must be situated in the State of Bihar. Since the first of these two conditions is not satisfied in the present case the Act cannot apply. In our opinion this contention is well founded and must be upheld."12. The facts in that case were that:"a temple (was) situated at Vrindavan Dham in the District of Mathra in Uttar Pradesh. In this temple were installed the family idol of Shri Radha Gopalji as well as the idol of Radhendra Kishorji in 1872 and 1877 respectively by Maharani Inderjit Kuer of Tikari. The said Maharani created waqf of certain properties known as Balkhar Mahal in the District of Gaya by a registered deed of endowment on July 25, 1872, for the purpose of meeting the expenses relating to food, offering prayers and worship in the said temple. . . . . . . . The Trust owns properties also in Bihar."13. This Court repelled the contention that since the Trustees reside in Bihar and the Trust is substantially administered in Bihar the provisions of the Bihar Act would be applicable, and observed:"It is the situs of the trust of the principal institution or temple with which the trust is integrally connected that determines the applicability of the Act. The properties in question which are situated partly in Uttar Pradesh and partly in Bihar belong to the temple an the deity is their owner. This deity is enshrined in the temple situated at Vrindavan Dham, and so it is common ground that the situs of the temple is outside Bihar. It is also admitted that part of the properties belonging to the trust are in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore the two tests laid down by this court inevitably lead to the conclusion that the present trust is outside the purview of the Act. The fact that the trustees reside in Bihar or that the trust is partially administered in Bihar for charitable purposes can make no difference to this position."14. In Mahant Ramswarup v. Motiram Khandu, 1968 Mah LJ 363 = (AIR 1968 SC 422 ) a case governed by the Bombay Public Trusts Act, Shelat, J., observed:"There is no dispute that the trust is administered at Burhanpur and the bulk of its properties, except the three pieces of lands situated in the District of Dhulia, are all situated in the Madhya Pradesh State. The fact that a part of its properties is situated in Maharashtra State though the trust is within Madhya Pradesh State would not mean that the trust would be governed partly by the Madhya Pradesh Act and partly by the Bombay Act. Such a division of the Trust and its administration is not contemplated by either of the two Acts."15. It seems to us that, in few of the above authorities, in order to determine the situs of the trust, which consists of a Math and a subordinate so-called math or maths, it is the situs of the principal math which will determine the applicability of the Act. We need not here decide the position of an independent real math though connected with another math. The High Court has found in this case that in the Nasik Math no religious instructions are imparted and no spiritual service is rendered to any body o disciples. Further no member of the public is allowed to enter the place of worship without permission although worship is carried out by the Pujaris according to vedic usage. In view of these findings the Nasik Math cannot be held to be a real math or temple within the definitions, set out above. In our opinion, the High Court was right in holding that the Nasik Math is not liable to be registered under the Act.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]15. It seems to us that, in few of the above authorities, in order to determine the situs of the trust, which consists of a Math and a subordinatemath or maths, it is the situs of the principal math which will determine the applicability of the Act. We need not here decide the position of an independent real math though connected with another math. The High Court has found in this case that in the Nasik Math no religious instructions are imparted and no spiritual service is rendered to any body o disciples. Further no member of the public is allowed to enter the place of worship without permission although worship is carried out by the Pujaris according to vedic usage. In view of these findings the Nasik Math cannot be held to be a real math or temple within the definitions, set out above. In our opinion, the High Court was right in holding that the Nasik Math is not liable to be registered under the Act.