Pratapsinhji N. Desai Versus Deputy Charity Commissioner, Gujarat and others-11/08/1987

AIRAIR All India Reporter 1987 SC 2064 : (1987) 3 SCRSupreme Court Reports It is the official Reporter of the reportable decisions delivered by the Supreme Court of India. It is published under the authority of the Supreme Court of India by the Controller of Publications, Government of India. 909 : (1987) Suppl. SCCSCC Supreme Court Cases 714 : JT 1987 (3) SC 335 : (1987) 2 SCALE 311

(SUPREME COURT OF INDIAArticle 124 of the Constitution of India Constitution of India > 124. Supreme Court (1) There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges. (2) Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal and shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years: Provided that-- (a) a Judge may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office (b) a Judge may be removed from his office in the manner provided in clause (4). (2A) The age of a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be determined by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law provide. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court unless he is a citizen of India and-- (a) has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or (b) has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such courts in succession; or (c) is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. (4) A Judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-third of the members of the House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity. (5) Parliament may by law regulate the procedure for the presentation of an address and for the investigation and proof of the misbehavior or incapacity of a Judge under clause (4): (6) Every person appointed to be a Judge of the Supreme Court shall, before he enters upon his office, make and subscribe before the President, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule. (7) No person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court shall plead or act in any court or before any authority within the territory of India.)

Pratapsinhji N. Desai Versus Deputy Charity Commissioner, Gujarat and others-

(Before : A. P. Sen And B. C. Ray, JJ.)

Civil AppealCivil Appeal Vasant Ganesh Damle vs. Shrikant Trimbak Datar (AIR 2002 SC 1237) in the following words: "The appeal is considered to be an extension of the suit because U/S. 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate Court has the same powers as are conferred by the Code on Courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. Such a power can be exercised by the appellate Court "as nearly as may be" exercised by the trial Court under the Code. If the powers conferred upon the trial Court are under a specified statute and not under the Code, it has to be ascertained as to whether such a power was intended to be exercised by the appellate Court as well. Such a position can be ascertained by having a reference to the specified law by keeping in mind the legislative intention of conferment of power on the appellate Court either expressly or by necessary implication." No. 2041 of 1972 , Decided on : 11-08-1987.

HinduHindu הִנְדּוּאָה (hinĕḋẇʼáh), ινδουϊσμός: Hend  (Hendu). The establishment of a satellite state of the Ghaznavid Empire (capital: Lahore) in the Punjab (first half of the 11th century) was known as Hindustan—a geographical name given by the Persians, who came to visit Bharatvarsha (​हिन्दुस्तान). Asadi’s Garsasp-nama, expeditions to Hend and Sarandib (Sri Lanka) have been featured. Sanatan Dharma is the actual Dharmic tradition of the Hindus. People who live in Hindusthan are Hindu (The word is an original word), whether they follow Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Mahavira, or Nanaka. In this way, Tribals are also Hindu. Indian sword (šamšir-e hendi in zaḵm-e hendi). Anbar-e hendi (India perfumes) by Farroki. Ebn Battuta (Toḥfat al-noẓẓār fi ḡarāʾeb al-amṣārwa ʿajāʾeb al-asfār: ca. 1330) first mentioned 'Hindu Kush.' LawLaw νόμος:  Positive command of sovereign or divine. One can be ruled either by a Statute, a Statue, or a Statement. Legislation is the rule-making process by a political or religious organisation. Physics governs natural law. Logical thinking is a sign of a healthy brain function. Dharma is eternal for Sanatanis. Judiciary > Show me the face, and I will show you the law. Some people know how to bend the law rather than break it. Law Practice. Read a scholarly article—Religious endowmentEndowment Donation (investment) of big funds in charity for School, College, Hospital, Development or Regime change. November 22, 1983, the US Congress passed the NED Act.—Distinction between Public and Private TrustTrust It originated and was reduced to practice under the jurisdiction of courts by the civil law, was expanded and developed in the courts of chancery, and has been employed in nearly every field of human activity. The fundamental nature of a trust is the division of title, with the trustee being the holder of legal title and the beneficiary that of equitable title. By definition, the creation of a trust must involve a conveyance of property. > Trust Deed ∫ Having trust/faith/confidence in something—Difference of beneficiaries—Principle for determination of nature of endowment.

The essence of a public endowment consists in its being dedicated to the public; and in the absence of any documentDocument It means any matter expressed or described or otherwise recorded upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks or any other means or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter and includes electronic and digital records. (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023) creating the endowment, long user is the material factor from which an inference of dedication may arise. The distinction between a private and public endowment is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are general public or a class thereof.

When property is dedicated for the workshop of a family idol, it is a private and not a public endowment, as the members who are entitled to worship at the shrine of the deity can only be the members of the family i.e. an ascertained group of individuals. But where the beneficiaries are not the members of a family or specified individuals but the public at large of a specified portion thereof, then the endowment can only be regarded as public intended to benefit the general body of worshippers.

Judgement

Sen, J—This appeal on certificate brought from the judgmentJudgment The statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order - CPC 2(9). It contains a concise statement of the case, points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision - Order 20 Rule 4(2).  Section 354 of CrPC requires that every judgment shall contain points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. Indian Supreme Court Decisions > Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts (Art 141 Indian Constitution) Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Art 144) Supreme Court Network On Judiciary – Portal > Denning: “Judges do not speak, as do actors, to please. They do not speak, as do advocates, to persuade. They do not speak, as do historians, to recount the past. They speak to give Judgment. And in their judgments, you will find passages, which are worthy to rank with the greatest literature….” Law Points on Judgment Writing > The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision. Judgments are primarily meant for those whose cases are decided by judges (State Bank of India and Another Vs Ajay Kumar Sood SC 2022) and order of the High CourtHigh Court High Court Judges in England and Wales handle complex and tough cases, sitting in London and traveling to court centers around the country. They preside over serious criminal and important civil cases, and support the Lord and Lady Justices in hearing appeals. High Court Judges are commonly referred to as ‘Mr/Mrs/Ms Justice surname’ and are given the prefix ‘The Honourable’. They are assigned to the King’s Bench Division, the Family Division, or the Chancery Division. The King’s Bench Division focuses on civil wrongs and judicial review, the Family Division deals with family law, and the Chancery Division handles various cases including company law and probate. Judges are appointed through a rigorous process overseen by the Judicial Appointments Commission. of Gujarat dated July 3, 1972 raises a question whether the High Court was justified in reversing the decision of the DistrictDistrict India has 800 districts under 29 federal states and 8 union territories. Adilabad Agar-Malwa Agra Ahilyanagar Ahmedabad Aizawl Ajmer Akola Alappuzha Aligarh Alipurduar Alirajpur Alluri Sitharama Raju Almora Alwar Ambala Ambedkar Nagar Amethi Amravati Amreli Amritsar Amroha Anakapalli Anand Ananthapuramu Anantnag Anjaw Annamayya Anugul Anuppur Araria Ariyalur Arvalli Arwal Ashoknagar Auraiya Aurangabad Ayodhya Azamgarh Bagalkote Bageshwar Baghpat Bahraich Bajali Baksa Balaghat Balangir Baleshwar Ballari Ballia Balod Balodabazar-Bhatapara Balotra Balrampur Balrampur-Ramanujganj Banas Kantha Banda Bandipora Banka Bankura Banswara Bapatla Bara Banki Baramulla Baran Bareilly Bargarh Barmer Barnala Barpeta Barwani Bastar Basti Bathinda Beawar Beed Begusarai Belagavi Bemetara Bengaluru Rural Bengaluru Urban Betul Bhadohi Bhadradri Kothagudem Bhadrak Bhagalpur Bhandara Bharatpur Bharuch Bhavnagar Bhilwara Bhind Bhiwani Bhojpur Bhopal Bichom Bidar Bijapur Bijnor Bikaner Bilaspur Bilaspur Birbhum Bishnupur Biswanath Bokaro Bongaigaon Botad Boudh Budaun Budgam Bulandshahr Buldhana Bundi Burhanpur Buxar Cachar Central Chamarajanagar Chamba Chamoli Champawat Champhai Chandauli Chandel Chandigarh Chandrapur Changlang Charaideo Charkhi Dadri Chatra Chengalpattu Chennai Chhatarpur Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Chhindwara Chhotaudepur Chikkaballapura Chikkamagaluru Chirang Chitradurga Chitrakoot Chittoor Chittorgarh Chumoukedima Churachandpur Churu Coimbatore Cooch Behar Cuddalore Cuttack Dadra And Nagar Haveli Dahod Dakshin Bastar Dantewada Dakshin Dinajpur Dakshina Kannada Dhenkanal Dholpur Dhubri Dhule Dibang Valley Dibrugarh Didwana-Kuchaman Dima Hasao Dimapur Dindigul Dindori Diu Doda Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema Dumka Dungarpur Durg East East Garo Hills East Godavari East Jaintia Hills East Kameng East Khasi Hills East Siang East Singhbum Eastern West Khasi Hills Eluru Ernakulam Erode Etah Etawah Faridabad Faridkot Farrukhabad Fatehabad Fatehgarh Sahib Fatehpur Fazilka Ferozepur Firozabad Gadag Gadchiroli Gajapati Ganderbal Gandhinagar Ganganagar Gangtok Ganjam Garhwa Gariyaband Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi Gautam Buddha Nagar Gaya Ghaziabad Ghazipur Gir Somnath Giridih Goalpara Godda Golaghat Gomati Gonda Gondia Gopalganj Gorakhpur Gumla Guna Guntur Gurdaspur Gurugram Gwalior Gyalshing Hailakandi Hamirpur Hamirpur Hanumakonda Hanumangarh Hapur Harda Hardoi Haridwar Hassan Hathras Haveri Hazaribagh Hingoli Hisar Hnahthial Hojai Hooghly Hoshiarpur Howrah Hyderabad Idukki Imphal East Imphal West Indore Jabalpur Jagatsinghapur Jagitial Jaipur Jaisalmer Jajapur Jalandhar Jalaun Jalgaon Jalna Jalore Jalpaiguri Jammu Jamnagar Jamtara Jamui Jangoan Janjgir-Champa Jashpur Jaunpur Jayashankar Bhupalapally Jehanabad Jhabua Jhajjar Jhalawar Jhansi Jhargram Jharsuguda Jhunjhunu Jind Jiribam Jodhpur Jogulamba Gadwal Jorhat Junagadh Kabeerdham Kachchh Kaimur (Bhabua) Kaithal Kakching Kakinada Kalaburagi Kalahandi Kalimpong Kallakurichi Kamareddy Kamjong Kamle Kamrup Kamrup Metro Kancheepuram Kandhamal Kangpokpi Kangra Kannauj Kanniyakumari Kannur Kanpur Dehat Kanpur Nagar Kapurthala Karaikal Karauli Karbi Anglong Kargil Karimganj Karimnagar Karnal Karur Kasaragod Kasganj Kathua Daman Damoh Dangs Darbhanga Darjeeling Darrang Datia Dausa Davanagere Deeg Dehradun Deogarh Deoghar Deoria Devbhumi Dwarka Dewas Dhalai Dhamtari Dhanbad Dhar Dharashiv Dharmapuri Dharwad Dhemaji Katihar Katni Kaushambi Kendrapara Kendujhar Keyi Panyor Khagaria Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai Khairthal-Tijara Khammam Khandwa (East Nimar) Khargone (West Nimar) Khawzawl Kheda Kheri Khordha Khowai Khunti Kinnaur Kiphire Kishanganj Kishtwar Kodagu Koderma Kohima Kokrajhar Kolar Kolasib Kolhapur Kolkata Kollam Kondagaon Koppal Koraput Korba Korea Kota Kotputli-Behror Kottayam Kozhikode Kra Daadi Krishna Krishnagiri Kulgam Kullu Kumuram Bheem Asifabad Kupwara Kurnool Kurukshetra Kurung Kumey Kushinagar Lahaul And Spiti Lakhimpur Lakhisarai Lakshadweep District Lalitpur Latehar Latur Lawngtlai Leh Ladakh Leparada Lohardaga Lohit Longding Longleng Lower Dibang Valley Lower Siang Lower Subansiri Lucknow Ludhiana Lunglei MAUGANJ Madhepura Madhubani Madurai Mahabubabad Mahabubnagar Mahasamund Mahendragarh Mahesana Mahisagar Mahoba Mahrajganj Maihar Mainpuri Majuli Malappuram Malda Malerkotla Malkangiri Mamit Mancherial Mandi Mandla Mandsaur Mandya Munger Murshidabad Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarpur Mysuru Nabarangpur Nadia Nagaon Nagapattinam Nagarkurnool Nagaur Nagpur Nainital Nalanda Nalbari Nalgonda Namakkal Namchi Namsai Nanded Nandurbar Nandyal Narayanpet Narayanpur Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur(M C B) Mangan Mansa Marigaon Mathura Mau Mayiladuthurai Mayurbhanj Medak Medchal Malkajgiri Meerut Meluri Mirzapur Moga Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chouki Mokokchung Mon Moradabad Morbi Morena Mulugu Mumbai Mumbai Suburban Mungeli Narmada Narmadapuram Narsimhapur Nashik Navsari Nawada Nayagarh Neemuch New Delhi Nicobars Nirmal Niuland Niwari Nizamabad Noklak Noney North North 24 Parganas North And Middle Andaman North East North Garo Hills North Goa North Tripura North West Ntr Nuapada Nuh Pakke Kessang Pakur Pakyong Palakkad Palamu Palghar Pali Palnadu Palwal Panch Mahals Panchkula Pandhurna Panipat Panna Papum Pare Parbhani Parvathipuram Manyam Paschim Bardhaman Paschim Medinipur Pashchim Champaran Patan Pathanamthitta Pathankot Patiala Patna Pauri Garhwal Peddapalli Perambalur Peren Phalodi Phek Pherzawl Pilibhit Pithoragarh Poonch Porbandar Prakasam Pratapgarh Pratapgarh Prayagraj Puducherry Pudukkottai Pulwama Pune Purba Bardhaman Ranipet Ratlam Ratnagiri Rayagada Reasi Rewa Rewari Ri Bhoi Rohtak Rohtas Rudraprayag Rupnagar S.A.S Nagar Sabar Kantha Sagar Saharanpur Saharsa Sahebganj Saitual Sakti Salem Salumbar Samastipur Samba Purba Medinipur Purbi Champaran Puri Purnia Purulia Rae Bareli Raichur Raigad Raigarh Raipur Raisen Rajanna Sircilla Rajgarh Rajkot Rajnandgaon Rajouri Rajsamand Ramanagara Ramanathapuram Ramban Ramgarh Rampur Ranchi Ranga Reddy Sambalpur Sambhal Sangareddy Sangli Sangrur Sant Kabir Nagar Saraikela Kharsawan Saran Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Satara Satna Sawai Madhopur Sehore Senapati Seoni Sepahijala Serchhip Shahdara Shahdol Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar Shahjahanpur Shajapur Shamator Shamli Sheikhpura Sheohar Sheopur Shi Yomi Shimla Shivamogga Shivpuri Shopian Shrawasti Siaha Siang Siddharthnagar Siddipet Sidhi Sikar Simdega Sindhudurg Singrauli Sirmaur Sirohi Sirsa Sitamarhi Sitapur Sivaganga Sivasagar Siwan Solan Solapur Sonbhadra Sonepur Sonipat Sonitpur Soreng South South 24 Parganas South Andamans South East South Garo Hills South Goa South Salmara Mancachar South Tripura South West South West Garo Hills South West Khasi Hills Sri Muktsar Sahib Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore Sri Sathya Sai Srikakulam Srinagar Sukma Sultanpur Sundargarh Supaul Surajpur Surat Surendranagar Surguja Suryapet Tamenglong Tamulpur Tapi Tarn Taran Tawang Tehri Garhwal Tengnoupal Tenkasi Thane Thanjavur The Nilgiris Theni Thiruvallur Thiruvananthapuram Thiruvarur Thoothukkudi Thoubal Thrissur Tikamgarh Tinsukia Tirap Tiruchirappalli Tirunelveli Tirupathur Tirupati Tiruppur Tiruvannamalai Tonk Tseminyu Tuensang Tumakuru Udaipur Udalguri Udham Singh Nagar Udhampur Udupi Ujjain Ukhrul Warangal Wardha Washim Wayanad West West Garo Hills West Godavari West Jaintia Hills West Kameng West Karbi Anglong West Khasi Hills West Siang West Singhbhum West Tripura Wokha Y.S.R. Yadadri Bhuvanagiri Yadgir Yamunanagar Yavatmal Zunheboto Umaria Una Unakoti Unnao Upper Siang Upper Subansiri Uttar Bastar Kanker Uttar Dinajpur Uttara Kannada Uttarkashi Vadodara Vaishali Valsad Varanasi Vellore Vidisha Vijayanagara Vijayapura Vikarabad Viluppuram Virudhunagar Visakhapatnam Vizianagaram Wanaparthy Judge, Surendranagar dated March 19, 1964 and restoring the order of the Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad, State of Gujarat dated February 1, 1962 upholding that of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad holding that the two temples of Sri Dwarkadhishji and Sri Trikamrayji at Patadi were temples as defined in S. 2(17) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and therefore they fell within the purview of the expression ‘public trust’ within the meaning of S. 2(13) of the Act.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be shortly stated. The appellant is a former ruler of the semi-jurisdictionJurisdiction Authority by which courts receive and decide cases. Limited Jurisdiction: the authority over only particular types of cases, or cases under a prescribed amount in controversy, or seeking only certain types of relief, the District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. Original Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction of the first court to hear a case. State of Patadi, one of the 17 States which entered into a covenant for the formation of the United State of Kathiawad which on the reorganisation of the States became part of the former State of Bombay and now forms part of the State of Gujarat. The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 was extended to the Saurashtra region including the area that formed part of the erstwhile State of Patadi in the year 1952.

3. In Patadi, which was the seat of the former Ruler, there exist two temples known as Sri Dwarkadhishji Mandir or Haveli which is the main templeTemple Latin templum (Tem > "to cut", set apart) Greek temenos (ναός - innermost chamber), Old French temple "side of the forehead" >  night temper > Template. Church building (εκκλησιαστικό κτίριο) is not a Temple (ναός) rather it is σαλόνι for a communal meal (devoid of ιερότητα και αφιέρωση), again the early Christian community had no intention to build anything like Ναός του Σολομώντα. (मन्दिर  is देवगृह), मन्दिर प्रतिष्टा is a good karma mentioned in Agni and Gaduda Purana. Temple of Athena (Ναός της Αθηνάς). Ayodhya Ram Temple. Read: Temple Management, Devottar. and adjacent to it there is the smaller temple known as Sri Trikamrayji Mandir. Both these temples were constructed in the years 1872 and 1875 respectively by the then ruler of Patadi and the cost of construction was met from the Patadi State Treasury. The temples are situated on the main road in Patadi and do not form part of the Darbargadh or the palace wherein the ruler and the members of the royal family used to reside, although there exists a passage leading to the public road presumably meant for the use of the ladies of the royal family. In the Gram Panchayat records Sri. Dwarkadhishji Mandir or Haveli stands in the name of the deities and the appellant is merely shown as a Vahivatdar. Similarly, Sri Trikamrayji Mandir is shown as the property of the deities and the appellant as a Vahivatdar. The two temples were exempted from payment of municipal as well as other taxes including the land revenue presumably because they were public temples. This is one of the decisive factors in determining whether a temple is a private or a public one.

4. It appears that the management of the temples remained throughout with the successive ruler of Patadi but that circumstance would not afford an indicia of ownership of the temples being vested in the rulers. On the contrary, the evidenceEvidence All the means by which a matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted for investigation, is established or disproved. Bharatiya Sakshya (Second) Adhiniyam 2023 shows that the temples were throughout treated as places of public religious worship and the public in general and members of the Vaishnava sect in particular were regularly worshipping in the temples as a matterMatter Normal matter is made of molecules, which are themselves made of atoms. Inside the atoms, electrons are spinning around the nucleus. The nucleus is made of protons and neutrons. Inside the protons and neutrons, exist indivisible quarks, like the electrons. All matter around us is made of elementary particles. ( building blocks of matter > quarks and leptons). All stable matter in the universe is made from particles that belong to the first-generation. Fundamental forces result from the exchange of force-carrier particles, which belong to a broader group called “bosons”. The strong force is carried by the “gluon”, electromagnetic force is carried by the “photon.” of right ever since the installation of the deities and also taking part in the ceremonial festivals like ‘Hindola’ and ‘Annakut’ and making cash offerings or bhents, gifts of ornaments etc. The evidence also discloses that nobody was required to take permission from the darbar before entering into the temples for darshan and worship, nor was there any obstruction made at any point of timeTime χρόνος. Judicial: Where any expression of it occurs in any Rules, or any judgment, order or direction, and whenever the doing or not doing of anything at a certain time of the day or night or during a certain part of the day or night has an effect in law, that time is, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, held to be standard time as used in a particular country or state. (In Physics, time and Space never exist actually-“quantum entanglement”) यमः , पुं, (यमयति नियमयति जीवानां फलाफलमिति । यम् + अच् । विश्वे च कलयत्येव यः सर्व्वायुश्च सन्ततम् । अतीव दुर्निवार्य्यञ्च तं कालं प्रणमाम्यहम् ॥यमैश्च नियमैश्चैव यः करोत्यात्मसंयमम् । स चादृष्ट्वा तु मां याति परं ब्रह्म सनातनम् ॥ except after the initiation of the proceedings from the appellant or the manager and/or his servants to the use of the temples by the public as of right. The cash offerings or bhents, gifts of ornaments etc. made by the general public and members of the Vaishnava sect were kept in a golak at Sri Dwarkadhishji Mandir under the exclusive control of the Vaishnava sect and remittances were made to Goswami Maharaj, Acharya of the Vaishnava sect at Ahmedabad.

5. Even after the Act was extended to the erstwhile State of Patadi, the public in general and the members of the Vaishnava sect in particular had unrestricted right of worship at the temples. Sometime in the year 1958 the inhabitants of Patadi made a complaint to the Charity Commissioner that there were several items of public religious and charitable endowments under the possession and control of the appellant and he was appropriating the income and profits thereof. Thereupon the Deputy Charity Commissioner suo motu initiated proceedings under S. 19 of the Act and issued show causeShow Cause A process directed to a person to appear in court and present reasons why a certain order, judgment, or decree should not be made final. notice to the appellant. In answer to the show cause notice the appellant filed a reply admitting the existence of some public trusts and agreed to get them registered as such under S. 18 of the Act and thereafter made an application. He however pleaded that the two temples in question and the properties appurtenant thereto as well as a public libraryLibrary (1) Chinese Library Classification (2025 Current Version), (2) Library of Congress Classification (3) Vatican Apostolic Library (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana) were private properties of the ruler and the members of the royal family and were not public trusts. After the initiation of the proceedings the appellant put up a board at both the temples that anybody seeking darshan must seek his permission. During the inquiry, several witnesses were examined on behalf of the public as well as by the appellant. The appellant however did not enter the witness box but examined his chief darbari Natwarlal Ranchhodlal. The Deputy Charity Commissioner by his order dated January 29, 1960 on the totality of the evidence came to the conclusion that the shrines had been dedicated as places of public religious worship and were therefore temples within the meaning of S. 2(17) of the Act and these temples together with the properties appurtenant thereto have constituted public religious trusts within the meaning of S. 2(13). The appellant being dissatisfied carried an appeal to the Charity Commissioner who by his order dated February 1, 1962 upheld the finding reached by the Deputy Charity Commissioner. Aggrieved, the appellant made an application under S. 72 of the Act before the District Judge, Surendranagar for setting aside the order of the Charity Commissioner. The learned District Judge disagreed with the finding reached by the Charity Commissioner and held that there was no clear, cogent or satisfactory evidence of the existence of a public endowment. He held that the question as to whether the temples in question were dedicated to the public depends upon inferences which could legitimately be drawn from facts not in dispute and observed that a dedication to the public may be inferred from a long course of conduct of the founders and descendants. However, it was abundantly clear that the temples which undoubtedly have been constructed by the then ruler of Patadi adjacent to the Darbargard were meant for the worship of the family deities of the founder and his family. The temples were constructed by the then ruler of Patadi, the management of which exclusively remained with the ruler for the time being, and there was nothing to show that they were intended for the use of the public at large for an indeterminate though restricted class of the Hindu community in general. According to the learned District Judge, the mere factFact Something तथ्य (In-formation) that truly exists or happens or some-thing that has actual existence. Circumstances: a fact or event that makes a situation the way it is. Indian Evidence Act: It means and includes— (i) anything, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (ii) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. “facts in issue” means and includes any fact from which, either by itself or in connection with other facts, the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability, asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding, necessarily follows. that the public was allowed access to the temples was not conclusive as to the nature of the endowments and that the Department had failed to discharge the burden of showing that they were public endowments. Thereupon, the Deputy Charity Commissioner preferred an appeal under S. 72(4) of the Act to the High Court. Disagreeing with the learned District Judge the High Court has come to the conclusion following the decision of this Court in Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas Kalidas (1970) 2 SCR 275 that the two temples were places of public religious worship used as of right by the Vaishnavas and observed:

“The circumstance that the public or a section thereof have been regularly worshipping in the temples as a matter of course and they could take part in the festivals and ceremonies conducted in that temple as appears from the record, apparently as a matter of right, is a strong piece of evidence to establish the public character of the temple.”

**********

“There is nothing on record to indicate that in the long past in Patadi, any ruler had put any restriction on the use of the temples for Darshan over a fairly long period during which the members of the public have visited the temples as if they were their temples and this establishes their right. Such a consistent and unobstructed user must be taken as of right. It is well known that those who go for ‘Darshan’ and/or ‘Puja’ do not and generally have no occason to assert their right. It is not shown that the-right was ever obstructed.”

**********

“Although there was a sort of private passage running from the Darbargadh leading to the public road, presumably meant for the use of the ‘Pardanashin’ ladies of the royal family, this would not indicate that the temples were attached to the Darbargadh or were reserved for the exclusive use of the ruler and the members of the royal family.”

The High Court on a consideration of the evidence brought out two circumstances, namely, (1) The general public and particularly the members of the Vaishnava sect had unrestricted right of worship at the temples as a matter of course and participated in the festivals of ‘Hindola’ and ‘Annakut’ functions and sewa at Sri Dwarkadhishji Temple and daily darshan and worship at the other temple which, by itself, was a strong piece of evidence to establish the public character of the temples. And (2) The cash offerings or bhents, gifts of ornaments etc. were in the usual course credited in the two separate accountsAccounting It is the process of recording, summarizing, analyzing, and reporting financial transactions of a business or individual. Types of Accounts > Assets- Things you own (cash, property) Liabilities- Things you owe (loans, bills) Equity- Owner’s stake in the business Revenue- Money you earn (sales, services) Expenses- Costs to run the business kept for the two temples, which were utilised for the upkeep and maintenance of the temples, acquisition of immovable properties, advancement of loans and mortgages etc., also lead to the same conclusion. On consideration of the evidence in the case, particularly the two circumstances adverted to read in conjunction with the evidence as to the way in which the temple endowments had been dealt with and the evidence as to the public user of the temples, the High Court came to the conclusion that they were temples within the meaning of S. 2(17) of the Act which clearly fell within the ambit of the expression ‘public trust’ under S. 2(13). It repelled the contention of the appellant that the temples were the private temples of the ruler and members of the royal family, observing:

“These two relevant circumstances go to show that the two temples which were places of public religious worship were used as of right by the Vaishnavas. Such a view has been taken by their Lordships of the Supreme CourtSupreme Court The Court of last resort. Supreme Court of India (26/01/1950), Supreme Court of the United States (1798), Supreme Court of UK (1/10/2009), Supreme Court of Canada (1949), International Court of Justice (22/05/1947), > Supreme Court Network in Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Shah Ranchhoddas Kalidas (dead) (supra). There is no evidence on record to show that, the temples were treated as private property and that the income from the offerings made at the temples was merged with the State fundsFund The term refers to assets of every kind, whether corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, movable or immovable, however acquired, and legal documents or instruments in any form, including electronic or digital, evidencing title to, or interest in, such assets., much less treated as the private income of respondent No. 1 (ex-Ruler). There is also no evidence to show that the temples were at any time closed down on any occasion so as to exclude the public from worship when the members of the Ruler’s family visited the temple or temples on any other family occasion.”

“The mere management of the temples being with the successive rulers of Patadi would not afford an indicia. to show the ownership of temples as having been vested in the Rulers. It is well known that in the princely regimes, a citizen would not ordinarily interfere with the management of such properties being made by the then Ruler.” xx xx xx xx xx

“The only evidence examined is of Darbar’s Karbhari Natvarlal at Ex. 129 examined before the Deputy Charity Commissioner. His evidence that the darbar if it thinks fit can obstruct any person from entering into the temples introduced in the examination-in-chief is not dependable. He has in his cross-examination admitted that prior to the enquiry proceedings, nobody was required to take permission before entering the ‘Haveli’ and the Mandir for ‘Darshan’ and worship. This would. go to show that there was no obstruction made at any point of time by the Darbar and his manager and/or his servants to the use of the temples by the public as of right.”

**********

“Even if it be assumed that the temples had originated as private temples, although the case as urged by Mr. Chhaya is that the origin is unknown or lost in antiquity, there is good evidence to show that the temples were being used as public temples. Taking an integrated view of the circumstances aforesaid, as appear from the relevant evidence on record, in our opinionOpinion A judge's written explanation of a decision of the court. In an appeal, multiple opinions may be written. The court’s ruling comes from a majority of judges and forms the majority opinion. A dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority because of the reasoning and/or the principles of law on which the decision is based. A concurring opinion agrees with the end result of the court but offers further comment possibly because they disagree with how the court reached its conclusion., it must be held that the Vaishnavas were regularly worshipping in the temples as a matter of course and they took part in the festivals and ceremonies conducted in the temples and outside apparently as a matter of right.”

**********

“The mere fact that the successive Darbars of the rulers were the managers of the temples would not go to show that the temples were private trust properties. The circumstances aforesaid lead to a reasonable inference that although the origin of the temples was at the instance of then Ruler of the Patadi State, the funds which went for the construction of the temples were the funds of the State and, at least gradually in course of time, there was dedication of the temples for the benefit of the Vaishnav community as places of public worship.”

We thoughtThinking Human beings began conscious thought as far back as sixty million years ago. By around three hundred thousand years ago, humans inhabiting the Indian subcontinent had developed forms of cognition comparable to those of the modern age, including awareness of competition, defense, and collective security. These early communities were capable of abstract observation, such as counting stars in the night sky, and engaged in reflective discussion about everyday experiences, including the flavors and qualities of food, indicating a sophisticated mental and social life. that on the overwhelming evidence on record – both oral and documentary – no other conclusion than the one reached by the High Court was possible.

6. The question whether the temples had been dedicated to the public or were the private property of the appellant was essentially a matter of inference to be drawn from the other facts on record and the findings arrived at by the High Court as well as the Charity Commissioner were clearly unassailable.

7. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has, in substance, advanced three main contentions, namely:(1) There was no evidence whatever to establish that there was dedication of the temples by the appellant’s ancestor for the benefit or use of the public. Where in a case like the present, the creation of the trust is not lost in antiquity or shrouded in obscurity, the temples having admittedly been constructed by the appellants ancestor must, in the absence of a formal document of endowment, be regarded as the private temples of the founder and the members of the royal family, from the fact that the appellant and his predecessors have throughout been in management of the same. (2) The burden was on the Charity Commissioner to establish the existence of a public endowment and as a matter of law there had to be very strong and clear evidence before such an inference could be raised and that burden the Charity Commissioner has failed to discharge. The findings reached by the High Court and the Charity Commissioner that the temples were places of public religious worship and were temples within the meaning of S. 2(17) of the Act and fell within the purview of the expression ‘public trust’ as defined in S. 2(13), are therefore vitiated due to misplacing of that burden. (3) The High court was in error in holding that the temples were constructed by the appellant’s ancestor for the benefit of the community at large and that the general public or a particular section thereof, had an unrestricted right of worship at the temples merely because of the. circumstance that there was proofProof Mathematical proof, Direct proof, Proof by contraposition, Proof by contradiction, Proof by construction, Proof by exhaustion, Closed chain inference, Probabilistic proof, Combinatorial proof, Nonconstructive proof, Computer-assisted proofs. of long user of the temples by the public particularly by the members of the Vaishnava sect without any let or hinderance or the fact that in the revenue records and the register of the grain panchayat the temples were recorded in the names of the deities with the appellant shown as a mere Vahivatdar and that separate accounts were kept in respect of the temples. According to the learned counsel, these circumstances were non-sequitur. He relied upon Mulla’s Hindu Law, 15th edn., para 424 at pages 544-545, Mukherjea’s Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, 5th edn., paras 4.36 to 4.40 at pages 185-190, Nar Hari Sastri v. Shri Badrinath Temple Committee, (1952) SCR 849, Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas Kalidas (1970) 2 SCR 275, BiharBihar 38 Districts > Araria Arwal Aurangabad Banka Begusarai Bhagalpur Bhojpur Buxar Darbhanga Gaya Gopalganj Jamui Jehanabad Kaimur (Bhabua) Katihar Khagaria Kishanganj Lakhisarai Madhepura Madhubani Munger Muzaffarpur Nalanda Nawada Pashchim Champaran Patna Purbi Champaran Purnia Rohtas Saharsa Siwan Supaul Vaishali Samastipur Saran Sheikhpura Sheohar Sitamarhi State Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahanth Sri Biseshwar Das, (1971) 3 SCR 680 and Radhakanta Deb v. Commr. of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa, (1981) 2 SCR 826.

8. We have no manner of doubt that there is no substance in any of these contentions. As to the first, there is very strong and clear evidence to establish that there was dedication of the temples by the appellant’s ancestor for the use or benefit of the public. “Endowment” is dedication of property for purposes of religionReligion ‘The word ( θρησκεία) -Re Legion (Latin)- A group or Collection or a brigade, is a social-cultural construction and substantially doesn’t exist. Catholic religion (संघवाद) is different from the Protestant religion (संघवाद). Dharma is not Religion (धार्मिक संगठन). "Religion" occurs 5 times in 5 verses in the KJV. Hindu Religion means in the indian language is हिंदू धार्मिक संगठन. Deen in Islam. or charity having both the subject and object certain and capable of ascertainment. It is to be remembered that a trust in the sense in which the expression is used in English law is unknown in the Hindu system, pure and simple. Hindu piety found .expression in gifts to idols and images consecrated and installed in temples, to religious institutions of every kind and for all purposes considered meritorious in the Hindu social and religious system. Under the Hindu law the image of a deity of the Hindu pantheon is, as has been aptly called, a ‘juristic entity’, vested with the capacity of receiving gifts and holding property. The Hindu law recognises dedications for the establishment of the image of a deity and for maintenance and worship thereof. The property so dedicated to a pious purpose is placed extra-commercium and is entitled to special protection at the hands of the Sovereign whose duty it is to intervene to prevent fraud and waste in dealing with religious endowments. Dedication need not always be in writing and can be inferred from the facts and circumstances appearing. It would be a legitimate inference to draw that the founder of the temple had dedicated it to the public if it is found that he had held out the temple to be a public one:Pujari Lakshmana Goundan V. Subramania Ayyar, AIR 1924 PC 44.

9. In view of this, the contention that there is no evidence to establish that there was dedication of the temples by the appellant’s ancestor for the benefit or use of the public or a section thereof, cannot. therefore prevail. On the contrary, the evidence discloses that although the temples had been constructed by the appellant’s ancestor, the cost of their construction was met from out of the public exchequer and that the income from the offerings made by the worshippers at the shrine in the form of bhents and gifts of ornaments etc. as also the income from properties acquired for the temple from out of such income were utilised for the upkeep and maintenance of the temples. That evidence clearly establishes that the temples were intended and meant by the founder for the benefit and use of the public. As to the second, undoubtedly the burden was on the Charity Commissioner to establish the existence of a public endowment and that burden the Charity Commissioner has discharged by unimpeachable evidence of long and uninterrupted user of the temples by the general public and particularly by members of the Vaishnava sect. The finding reached by the High Court and the Charity Commissioner that the temples were places of public religious worship within the meaning of S. 2(17) read with S. 2(13) of the Act is not vitiated by misplacing of that burden but the finding reached by them is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. As to the third contention, we would presently deal with the circumstances brought out in the evidence which lead to no other conclusion than the one arrived at by the Charity Commissioner and the High Court, that the temples constructed by the appellant’s ancestor were for the benefit of the community at large and the members of the Vaishnava sect in particular and that they had an unrestricted right of worship.

10. In the absence of a written grant, the question whether an endowment made by a private individual is a public endowment or a private one is a mixed question of fact and law and the scope of dedication must be determined on the application of legal concepts of a public and private endowment to the facts found in each particular case. Facts and circumstances, in order to be accepted as proof of dedication of a temple as a public temple, must be considered in their historicalHistorical Old or ancient facts, which could be verified, are recorded after following a system. 'In the beginning was God' is a faith statement, not a historical Fact. Itihas (iti-ha-asa) in Sanskrit means it was there or as it existed, which is part of Smriti Parampara, verified facts, and Puranas are a collection of old stories of the vedic nation, which can not be verified, but they are with the people and recorded in books without verification. setting viz. the origin of the temple, the manner in which its affairs are managed, the nature and extent of the gifts received, the rights exercised by the devotees in regard to worship therein, etc. In the present case, the temples were constructed at public expenditure by meeting the cost of construction from the public exchequer and the upkeep and maintenance of the temples was met by public subscription and therefore the High Court and the Charity Commissioner rightly inferred existence of a public endowment. Such an inference was strengthened by the fact of user of the temples by the public or a section thereof, as of right for over a century. The general effect of the evidence is that the appellant as well as his predecessors although in management, had throughout treated the temples as public temples of which they were mere Vahivatdars.

11. The essence of a public endowment consists in its being dedicated to the public; and in the absence of any document creating the endowment, long user is the material factor from which an inference of dedication may arise. The distinction between a private and public endowment is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof. The distinction is succinctly brought out in Mulla’s Hindu Law in para 424 at pages 544-545 in these words:

“Religious endowments are either public or private. In a public endowment the dedication is for the use or benefit of the public. The essential distinction between a public and a private endowment is that in the former the beneficial interest is vested in an uncertain and a fluctuating body of persons, either the public at large or some considerable portion of it answering a particular description; in a private endowment the beneficiaries are definite and ascertained individuals or who within a definite time can be definitely ascertained. The fact that the fluctuating and uncertain body of persons is a section of the public following a particular religious faithFaith  πίστει. or is only a sect of persons of a certain religious persuasion would not make it a private endowment. The essence of a public endowment consists in its being dedicated to the public, and in the absence of any document creating the endowment, long user is the material factor from which an inference of dedication may arise. Besides user by the public, conduct of the founder and his descendants is also relevant, and if they in fact held out the temple to be a public one a very strong presumptionPresumption An inference of the truth or falsehood of a proposition or fact that stands until rebutted by evidence to the contrary. of dedication would arise. When property is set apart for the worship of a family god in which the public are not interested, the endowment is a private one.”

It therefore follows that the principles are well-settled. When property is dedicated for the worship of a family idol, it is a private and not a public endowment, as the members who are entitled to worship at the shrine of the deity can only be the members of the family i.e. an ascertained group of individuals. But where the beneficiaries are not the members of a family or specified individuals but the public at large of a specified portion thereof, then the endowment can only be regarded as public intended to benefit the general body of worshippers.

12. We do not think that it would serve any purpose to refer to all the well-known decisions except a few. In Pujari Lakshmana Goundan v. Subramania Ayyar (supra), the temple was not an ancient one and there was no deed of endowment. The question was whether the temple was a public temple or a private temple. Although the temple was a private temple, the evidence disclosed that the Pujari Lakshmana Goundan, the founder of the temple had held out and represented to the Hindu public in general that the temple was a public temple at which all Hindus might worship. Sir John Edge, in delivering the judgment of the Privy Council held that on that evidence the Judicial Committee had no hesitation in drawing the inference that the founder had dedicated the temple to the public, as it was found that he had held out the temple as a public temple. Another Privy Council decision to which we need refer is that of Babu Bhagwan Din v. Gir Har Saroop, (1940) 67 Ind App 1 where the grant was made to one Daryao Gir and his heirs in perpetuity and the evidence showed that the temple and the properties attached thereto had throughout been treated by the members of the family as their private property appropriating to themselves the rents and profits thereof. Sir George Rankin, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council held that the fact that the grant was made to an individual and his heirs in perpetuity was not reconcilable with the view that the grantor was in effect making a wakf for a Hindu religious purpose. That very distinguished Judge referred to the earlier decision in Pujari Lakshamana Goundan’s case, and observed:

“Their Lordships do not consider that the case before them is in general outline the same as the case of the Madras temple, 29 Cal WN 112, in which it was held that the founder who had enlarged the house in which the idol had been installed by him, constructed circular roads for processions, built a rest house in the village for worshippers, and so forth, had held out and represented to the Hindu public that it was a public temple”.

13. The true test as laid down by this Court speakingSpeech 400 million years ago, the larynx was developed and allowed for communication with other animals. 60 million years ago, human beings talked about Dynosure or like animals in India. The vocal tract was in place to support modern human discourse as early as 300,000 years ago in the Indian subcontinent.   through Venkatarama Ayyar, J. in Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, (1956) SCR 756 in determining whether a temple is a private or a public temple, depends on whether the public at large or a section thereof, ‘had an unrestricted right of worship’ and observed :

“When once it is understood that the true beneficiaries of religious endowments are not the idols but the worshippers, and that the purpose of the endowment is the maintenance of that worship for the benefit of worshipppers, the question whether an endowment is private or public presents no difficulty. The cardinalCardinals Can. 349 - The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special College which is responsible for providing for the election of the Roman Pontiff, according to the norm of special law; furthermore, the Cardinals assist the Roman Pontiff both by acting collegially when they are summoned together to deal with matters of greater importance. > Four Cardinal Principles of Confucius.  point to be decided is whether it was the, intentionIntention This means to “have in mind.” A plant to do a thing (Planning: premeditation is evident through evidence of active preparation, e.g., hoarding pills, purchase of weapon). It refers to the aim, purpose, or goal of the behavior, e.g., to seek an end to/solution. A conscious mental process to move precedes the brain’s preparation for movement. of the founder that specified individuals are to have the right of worship at the shrine, or the general public or any specified portion thereof.”

The learned Judge distinguished the decision of the Privy Council in Babu Bhagwan Din v. Gir Har Saroop (supra) on the gorund that properties in that case were granted not in favour of an idol or temple but in favour of the founder who was maintaining the temple and to his heirs in perpetuity, and said:

“But, in the present case, the endowment was in favour of the idol itself, and the point for decision is whether it was private or public endowment. And in such circumstances, proof of user by the public without interference would be cogent evidence that the dedication was in favour of the public.”

It was also observed while distinguishing the Privy Council decision in Babu Bhagwan Din’s case that it was unusual for rulers to make grant to a family idol. In Deoki Nandan’s case the Court referred to several factors as an indicia of the temple being a public one viz. the fact that the idol is installed not within the precincts of residential quarters but in a separate building constructed for that purpose on a vacant site, the installation of the idols within the temple precincts, the performance of pooja by an archaka appointed from time to time for the purpose, the construction of the temple by public contribution, user of the temple by the public without interference, etc.

14. The next important decision is that of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. State of Rajasthan (1964) 1 SCR 561 where a ConstitutionConstitution The Constitution encompasses the global system of rules governing constitutional authority. Simply reading selected provisions of the written text may be misleading. Understanding the underlying principles, such as federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and respect for minorities, is crucial. Democratic institutions must allow for ongoing discussion and evolution, reflected in the right of participants to initiate constitutional change. This right entails a reciprocal duty to engage in discussions. Democracy involves more than majority rule, existing within the context of other constitutional values. Therefore, a profound understanding of these principles informs our appreciation of constitutional rights and obligations. Read more Bench of this Court had to consider whether the famous Nathdwara Temple which is held in great reverence by the Hindus in general and members of the Vaishnava followers of the Vallabha Sampradaya in particular was a public temple. It was held that neither the tenets nor the religious practice at the Vallabha SchoolSchool Σχολή > such as Σχολή Βυζαντινής Μουσικής necessarily postulate that the followers of the denomination must worship in a private temple. The Court observed that the question whether a Hindu temple is private or public must necessarily be considered in the light of the relevant facts relating to it as well as the accepted principles laid down by several judicial decisions, and it was said :

“A temple belonging to a family which is a private temple is not unknown to Hindu law. In the case of a private temple it is also not unlikely that the religious reputation of the founder may be of such a high order that the private temple founded by him may attract devotees in large numberNumber Αριθμός and the mere fact that a large number of devotees are allowed to worship in the temple would not necessarily make the private temple a public temple. On the other hand, a public temple can be built by subscriptions raised by the public and a deity installed to enable all the members of the public to offer worship. In such a case, the temple would clearly be a public temple.”

“Where evidence in regard to the foundation of the temple is not clearly available, sometimes, judicial decisions rely on certain other facts which are treated as relevant. Is the temple built in such an imposing manner that it may prima facie appear to be a public temple? The appearance of the temple of course cannot be a decisive factor; at best it may be a relevant factor. Are the members of the public entitled to an entry in the temple? Are they entitled to take part in offering service and taking Darshan in the temple? Are the members of the public entitled to take part in the festivals and ceremonies arranged in the temple? Are their offerings accepted as a matter of right?”

It was then laid down that the participation of the members of the public in the Darshan in the temple and in the daily acts of worship or in the celebrations of festival occasions would be a very strong factor in determining the character of the temple.

15. Another significant decision is that of Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Ranchhoddas Kalidas (supra) where the question arose whether the Haveli of Nadiad where the idol of Sri Gokulnathji was installed which is worshipped by the Vaishnava devotees of the Vallabha cult is a private or public temple on the ground of dedication, and it was laid down :

“In brief the origin of the temple, the manner in which its affairs are managed, the nature and extent of gifts received by it, rights exercised by the devotees in regard to worship therein, the consciousnessConsciousness The mind’s (Mind) function that receives, processes, and evaluates information through the five senses, imagination, emotion, reason, and memory. The senses gather data, imagination and emotion interpret it, reason judges its value, and memory stores or discards it. In neurophysiology, consciousness is often defined as “subjective awareness” — the state of being aware of oneself and one’s surroundings. of the manager and the consciousness of the devotees themselves as to the public character of the temple are factors that go to establish whether a temple is a public temple or a private temple.”

See also:Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das (1971) 3 SCR 680, Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Purshottambuwa owner of Shri Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan v. Charity Commr. State of Bombay (1976) 3 SCR 518, and Radhakanta Deb v. Commr. of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa, (1981) 2 SCR 826. Hari Bhanu Maharaj of Baroda v. Charity Commr. Ahmedabad (1986) 4 SCC 162 and heir of deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Maharaj, Junagad v. Collector of Junagad District, (1986) 4 SCC 287.

16. We have carefully gone through the evidence of the witnesses examined by the Deputy Charity Commissioner as also the finding reached by him as well as by the Charity Commissioner which finding has been upheld by the High Court while reversing the decision of the learned District Judge. The Charity Commissioner with infinite care has marshalled the entire evidence in coming to the conclusion that the temples were public temples. Learned counsel for the appellant however relied onRelied on Relied to make the decision (ratio decidendi) and not only referred to push an issue. the judgment of the learned District Judge for the submission that the burden lay on the Charity Commissioner to prove that the endowment was a public endowment and not a private one and that burden he has failed to discharge. We find no substance in the contention advanced. There are overwhelming circumstances brought out in the order of the Charity Commissioner as well as in the judgment of the High Court and no other conclusion is possible than the one reached by them that the temples in question were public religious trusts within the meaning of S. 2(17) read with S. 2(13) of the Act. The learned District Judge in interfering with the order was largely influenced by the fact that the management of the temples throughout remained with the ruler for the time being and while adverting to the other circumstances held that there was no evidence that the temples were dedicated to the public at large or to a section thereof and that the other circumstances brought out in the evidence viz. public user for the past over 100 years without any let or hindrance, the fact that the members of the Hindu community in general and members of the Vaishnava sect in particular were allowed to visit the temples for worship and make their offerings, or that the temples stand recorded in the names of the deities in the revenue records and the register of the gram panchayat with appellant shown as a Vahivatdar, were not sufficient to draw an inference that the temples were places of public religious worship. In coming to that conclusion he relied upon the decision of the Privy Council in Babu Bhagwan Din’s case (supra) as also of this Court in Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji’s case (supra).

17. The underlying fallacy in the judgment of the learned District Judge is that he proceeds on the assumption that there was no dedication of the temples express or implied by the founder for the benefit or use of the public. Several circumstances are brought out by the Charity Commissioner and the High Court showing that the temples were public temples, namely:(1) Although the temples were constructed by the appellant’s ancestor way back in 1872 and 1875, there was positive evidence showing that the entire cost of construction was met from the public exchequer i.e. Patadi State Treasury. (2) The general public and particularly the members of the Vaishnava sect had an unrestricted right of worship at the temples and participated in the festivals and ceremonies conducted in the temples right from the very inception, as it appears from the record, apparently as a matter of right without any let or hindrance on the part of the appellant or his predecessors. (3) The Hindu worshippers at the temples in general and members of the Vaishnava sect in particular made cash offerings or bhents into the golak kept at Sri Dwarkadhishji Mandir or Haveli which was under the exclusive control of the members of the Vaishnava sect and the remittances of it used to be, made to Goswami Maharaj, Acharya of Vaishnava sect at Ahmedabad. (4) The public records showed that the temples stand recorded in the names of the deities, the appellant and his predecessors shown as mere Vahivatdars. It was an undisputed fact that separate accounts being maintained in respect of the income and expenditure of the temples i.e. the cash offerings, gifts of ornaments etc. were not intermingled with the monies belonging to the appellant or the members of the royal family and the incomes from the temples were utilised for their upkeep and maintenance and also for acquisition of properties attached to the temples. (5) The State used to keep apart a share of vaje i.e. Darbar’s share of the crops grown by the cultivators and also used to impose and collect tola, a cess from the cultivators for the upkeep and maintenance of the temples. There is therefore clear, consistent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence to establish that although the temples in question were constructed by the appellant’s ancestor but he intended and meant that they were meant for the use and benefit of the public. That evidence shows that the public at large and members of the Vaishnava sect had been worshipping at the temples as of right for the last over 100 years and that the temples had all along been primarily maintained by the contributions made by the public particularly by the devotees belonging to the Vaishnava sect. In course of time the temples particularly Sri Dwarkadhishji Mandir or Haveli attracted a large number of worshippers and they used to participate in the religious festivals and ceremonies performed there. The evidence of the witnesses also shows that the deities were taken out in a palanguin by members of the Vaishnava sect and it was joined by the general public. The temples though adjacent to the Darbargadh were not in the precincts of the palace but were constructed facing a public road allowing access to the general public. All these circumstances clearly support the finding reached by the Charity Commissioner and the High Court that the temples were public temples and therefore public religious trusts within the meaning of S. 2(17) read with S. 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the temples with the properties attached thereto were not the private properties of the appellant or the members of his family. The only factor relied, upon by the learned District Judge was that the management of the temples remained with the ruler for the time being but then the Court has to come to a conclusion not on one single factor alone but on a conspectus of all the relevant factors i.e. upon an appreciation of all the facts and circumstances appearing.

18. In the result, the appeal must fail and is dismissed with costsCosts Subject to any written law, costs are at the discretion of the Court, and the Court has the power to determine all issues relating to the costs of or incidental to all proceedings, including by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid, at any stage of the proceedings or after the conclusion of the proceedings. Generally “Costs” includes charges, disbursements, expenses, fees, and remuneration. Costs in any matter are payable from the date of the order of the Court unless the parties otherwise agree. The costs of a third-party funding contract are not recoverable as part of the costs of, or costs..