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

The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether thee properties are properties in respect of which there is a trust of a public or religious nature so as to attract the provisions of Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act (Act I of 1951). The plaintiff appellant filed the suit out of which the appeal arises for a declaration that the properties were his personal properties and that there was no trust of a religious or public nature so as to attract the provisions of the Bihar Act I of 1951. His case, as set out in the plaint, was that one Gurdyal Singh constructed a temple on his own land in the village of Dumri and installed the deities of Ramji, Lakshmanji and Sitaji in the temple. He used to perform puja andg till his death. The public had no concern with the idols. After his death he was succeeded by his son Gulab Singh who became a bairagi assuming the name of Gulab Das. Apart from the properties left by Gurdyal Singh, Gulab Das also acquired other properties. On his death he was succeeded by his Chela Brahmdas who in turn was succeeded by his Chela Dwarika Das. Each succeeding Mahant was succeeded by his Chela, the present Mahant being the. Properties were acquired by the respective Mahants in their own individual names and were always treated as their personal properties. Brahmdas constructed a temple in the village of Maudehin where also he installed the deities of Ramji, Lakshmanji and Sitaji and used to perform puja and. The temple and the properties were the private properties of the Mahant and the public did not have any interest or right in them. The suit was contested by the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts and others who pleaded that the temples and the properties were not the private properties of the Mahant and that they belonged to a Hindu Religious Trusts to which the provisions of the Bihar Religious Trusts Act were applicable. The suit was dismissed by the Additional Sub Judge of Muzaffarpur and the decree of the Trial Court was confirmed by the High Court of Patna.

Reasoning:
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.