Saji Koduvath.
Introduction
Each civilisation has its own peculiar concepts as to religious and charitable endowments and ‘trust’ attached to it. India is rich of its ancient past with regard to the charitable and religious dedications and trusts. They have their own unique history of development and formulation of legal principles.
Private Trust – Indian Law and English Law
Charitable trusts of public nature alone, and not of private nature, are accepted as valid under English Law. The distinction between English Law and Hindu Law has been stated by Dr. Mukherjea in his Tagore Law Lectures ‘On the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts’ as under:
- “In English Law charitable trusts are synonymous with public trusts and what is called religious trust is only a form of charitable trust. The beneficiaries in a charitable trust being the general public or a Section of the same and not a determinate body of individuals, the remedies for enforcement of charitable trust are somewhat different from those which can be availed of by beneficiaries in a private trust. In English Law the Crown as ‘parens-patriae’ is the constitutional protector of all property subject to charitable trusts, such trusts being essentially matters of public concern. … One fundamental distinction between English and Indian Law lies in the fact that there can be religious trust of a private character under Hindu Law which is not possible in English Law.” [1]
Dedication to Family Idol – Recognised by Indian Law
In case of a public temple, dedication of property thereto is complete or absolute, as in the case of a public way. Though assignment of property in favour of a private temple is also recognised as ‘dedication’, it not ‘absolute’ as in the case of a public temple.
In Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar[2] the Apex Court observed:
- “(W)hen property is dedicated for the worship of a family Idol, it is a private and not a public endowment, as the persons who are entitled to worship at the shrine of the Deity can only be the members of the family, and that is an ascertained group of individuals. “[3]
Distinction: Beneficiaries, Individuals or General Public
Dr. BK Mukherjea, J., ‘On the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts’, has set out the difficulty to make a distinction between public and private charitable trust as under:
- “The line of distinction between a public purpose and a purpose which is not public is very thin and technical and is difficult of an easy definition.”[4]
Where the beneficiaries of a trust or charity are limited to a finite group of identifiable individuals, the trust or charity is of a private character.[5]
As to determination of the nature of a temple, whether public or private, it is held in Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar,[6] as under:
- “The distinction between a private and a public trust is that whereas in the former, the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter, they are the general public or a class thereof. While in the former the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter they constitute a body which is incapable of ascertainment.”
Public Trust – Cardinal Point, Intention of Founder
In Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar,[7] it is held further:
- “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 the worshippers, the question whether an endowment is private or public presents no difficulty. The cardinal point to be decided is whether it was the intention of the founder that specified individuals are to have the right of worship at the shrine, or the general public or specified portion thereof. In accordance with this theory, it has been held that when property is dedicated for the worship of a family Idol, it is a private and not a public endowment, as the persons who are entitled to worship at the shrine of the Deity can only be the members of the family, and that is an ascertained group of individuals. But where the beneficiaries are not members of a family or a specified individual, then the endowment can only be regarded as public, intended to benefit the general body of worshippers.” [8]
No Document is Essential for Dedication in Public Trust
The act of delivering property, by its owner, for the use of the public is called ‘dedication’.
With regard to private trusts, under Sec. 5 of the Indian Trusts Act, for creation of trust on immovable property, ‘declaration by a non-testamentary instrument’ is essential; and for creation of trust on movable property, ‘transfer of ownership’ will be sufficient.
Section 5 of The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (pertains to private trust lone) reads as under”
- 5. Trust of immovable property – No trust in relation to immoveable property is valid unless declared by a non-testamentary instrument in writing signed by the author of the trust or the trustee and registered, or by the will of the author of the trust or of the trustee.
- Trust of moveable property – No trust relating to movable property is valid unless declared as aforesaid, or unless the ownership of the property is transferred to the trustee. These rules do not apply where they would operate so as to effectuate a fraud.
Public Trust – Nature of Dedication – Terms of the Document, Important
Declaration by a registered deed or vesting/transferring property to a trustee is the usual mode of dedication of immovable property; and no document is necessary for creating a religious endowment.
If the founders’ intention is clear from the document of foundation or other direct evidence, oral or documentary, no difficulty arises. In cases where express dedication cannot be proved, it will be a matter for legal inference from the proved facts and circumstances of each case. In Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Reli. Endts, it is held:
- “Where, however, a document is available to prove the nature and origin of the endowment and the recitals of the document show that the control and management of the temple is retained with the founder or his descendants, and that extensive properties are dedicated for the purpose of the maintenance of the temple belonging to the founder himself, this will be a conclusive proof to show that the endowment was of a private nature.”[9]
In S. Shanmugam Pillai . Vs. K. Shanmugam Pillai .[10] it is held:
- “Whether or not a dedication is complete would naturally be a question of fact to be determined in each case on the terms of the relevant document if the dedication in question was made under a document. … “[11]
In Hemanta Kumari Debi Vs. Gauri Shankar Tewari[12] it is held, while dealing with a bathing ghat on the banks of the River Ganges, that complete relinquishment of title was not the only form of dedication under Hindu Law.
It further observed as under:
- “In the absence of a formal and express endowment evidenced by deed or declaration, the character of the dedication can only be determined on the basis of the history of the institution and the conduct of the founder and his heirs.”
Our Apex Court observed the following, interpreting a deed, in Idol of Sri Renganatha-swamy Vs. PK Thoppulan Chettiar[13]as under:
- “The Deed of Settlement must be examined as a whole to determine the true intention of the settlor. Where the settlor seeks to divest himself of the property entirely for a religious purpose, a public religious charity is created. In the present case, the Deed of Settlement creates an absolute prohibition on the subsequent sale or mortgage of the suit property. The Deed of Settlement provides that, the settler purchased the punja land mentioned in the schedule of property… for the performance of charity work in reference to Sri Renganathan-swamy sanctum. The property outlined in the schedule of the Deedof Settlement is described as, property allotted for charity work. With respect to the legal heirs, the Deed of Settlement creates an obligation on the settlors legal heirs to continue the charitable activities at the suit property out of their business incomes. The settlor had a clear intent to divest himself and his legal heirs of the property and endow it for the continuation of the charitable activities at the suit property. The purpose of the endowment was to carry on charitable work. The Deed of Settlement obligates the legal heirs to continue the charitable activities at the suit property.”
Family Deity is also a Juristic Person
In case of dedication of property for creation of a public temple, the donor (i) completely relinquishes his title over the property, (ii) vests its ‘legal ownership’ with the Deity and (iii) transfers the possession thereof to the Shebaits (trustees) for administrating the same for the benefit of the public or a class thereof. It is beyond doubt that if the temple is a public temple, under Hindu Law, the idol is a juridical person; and so, the ownership of the temple and all its endowments including offerings made before the idol constitute the property of the idol.[14]
Principles as to legal personality, rights emanating therefrom, etc. with respect to a family temple are presented in the same manner as that of a public temple by Dr. BK Mukherjea, J. in his treatise ‘On Hindu Law of Religious & Charitable Trusts’.But it is observed (obiter) in Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs. Shri Som Nath Dass[15] as under:
- “The idol may be revered in homes but its juristic personality is only when it is installed in a public temple.”
The following passages in the Tagore Law Lectures by Dr. B.K. Mukherjea are relevant in this context.
- i. “In the first place even if property is dedicated to a family Deity, the endowment is a religious and charitable trust in the proper sense of the term, and as the law of perpetuity or remoteness cannot affect such dedication, there is no reason why the other incidents of private trust should be applied to it. In the second place, the Deity itself is a juridical person in Hindu Law and the dedicated property vests in it absolutely.” (Page 197)[16]
- ii. “When the Shebait himself is the misconducting party, whose removal is sought for or where property has been improperly alienated by the Shebait and he is unwilling or incapable of bringing a suit himself, any other person interested in the family debutter can sue, or the Deity itself as a juristic person can institute a suit through somebody as next friend.” (Page 462).[17]
Dedication of Property for Establishment of Dharmasala
While dealing with dedication of property for creation of a Dharmasala it is held in Kuldip Chand Vs. AG to Government of HP[18] as under:
- “When the complete control is retained by the owner – be it be appointment of a Chowkidar, appropriation of rents, maintenance thereof from his personal funds – dedication cannot be said to be complete.”
‘Valid and Complete’ Dedication in Family Temple
Though control and management of the property are retained by the founder, if the temple is bestowed for the benefit of the family members, it could also be qualified as ‘dedication’. When the founder of a family temple releases his individual rights over the endowed property and vest the legal ownership of the same with the family Deity, such a dedication is also ‘valid and complete’ in law.
Can a Private (Secular) Trust be Put to an End?
It is settled (Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Chorone Requitte[19]) that in the matter of (secular) private trusts, English principles are followed in India which lay down that if the beneficiaries are sui juris and of one mind, the trust can be put to an end or use the trust fund for any purpose.
- Chapter VIIII of the Indian Trusts Act is relevant here. It reads:
- Chapter VIIII – The Extinction of Trusts
- 77. Trust how extinguished.—A trust is extinguished—(a) when its purpose is completely fulfilled; or (b) when its purpose becomes unlawful; or (c) when the fulfillment of its purpose becomes impossible by destruction of the trust property or otherwise; or (d) when the trust, being revocable, is expressly revoked.
- 78. Revocation of trust.—A trust created by will may be revoked at the pleasure of the testator. A trust otherwise created can be revoked only— (a) where all the beneficiaries are competent to contract—by their consent; (b) where the trust has been declared by a non-testamentary instrument or by word of mouth—in exercise of a power of revocation expressly reserved to the author, of the trust; or (c) where the trust is for the payment of the debts of the author of the trust, and has not been communicated to the creditors—at the pleasure of the author of the trust. Illustration A conveys property to B in trust to sell the same and pay out of the proceeds the claims of A’s creditors. A reserves no power of revocation. If no communication has been made to the creditors, A may revoke the trust. But if the creditors, are parties to the arrangement, the trust cannot be revoked without their consent.
- 79. Revocation not to defeat what trustees have duly done.—No trust can be revoked by the author of the trust so as to defeat or prejudice what the trustees may have duly done in execution of the trust.
Can Entire Family Members Put an End to Family Temple?
In case of public trusts, no doubt, the principle is: once a trust is made, it is final and irrevocable.[20] As observed by the Apex Court in Agasthyar Trust, Madras Vs. Commr. of Income Tax Madras, even the founder cannot revoke or put an end to it. Subsequent conduct of the founder or his descendants contrary to such dedication would amount to a breach of trust.[21]
But there is difference of opinion in the matter of private religious trusts. It is held by Calcutta High Court in Sukumar Bose Vs. Abani Kumar (1956)[22] that the property once dedicated and a private trust created, the same cannot be put to an end even with the consent of all parties interested in the endowment. It was followed by the Calcutta High Court in Panna Banerjee Vs. Kali Kinkor Ganguli (1974).[23] Kerala (1961)[24] and Madras (1998)[25] High Court also took the same view.
The contrary view in Narayan Vs. Narasing Charan (1876),[26] had been criticized by Sir George Rankin, in Surendra Krishna Roy Vs. Shree ShreeIswar Bhubaneshwari Thakurani (1933).[27]
It is observed by the Apex Court in Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Chorone Requitte (1979)[28] as under:
- “23. Then, there is a distinction between a public and private debutter. In a public debutter or endowment, the dedication is for the use or benefit of the public. But in a private endowment, when property is set apart for the worship of a family idol, the public are not interested. The present case is one of a private debutter. The distinction is important, because the results logically following therefrom have been given effect to by courts, differently.
- 24. According to English law, the beneficiaries in a private trust, if sui juris and of one mind, have the power or authority to put an end to the trust or use the trust fund for any purpose and divert it from its original object. Whether this principle applies to a private endowment or debutter created under Hindu Law, is a question on which authorities are not agreed. In Doorganath Roy Vs. Ram Chunder Sen, LR4 IA 52 : ILR 2 Cal 233 it was observed that while the dedication is to a public temple, the family of the founder could not put an end to it, but “in the case of a family idol, the consensus of the whole family might give the (debutter) estate another direction” and turn it into a secular estate.
- 25. Subsequently, in Pramatha Nath Mullick Vs. Pradhyumna Kumar Mullick, 52 IA 245 : AIR 1925 PC 139 the Judicial Committee clarified that the property cannot be taken away from the idol and diverted to other purposes without the consent of the idol through its earthly agents who, as guardians of the deity, cannot in law consent to anything which may amount to an extinction of the deity itself.”[29]
B.K. Mukherjea on ‘The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust’ speaks as under:
- “In Narayan Vs. Narasing Charan, (1951)[30] there is an observation that the members of the family could by their consensus withdraw the endowment from the trust. But in Sukumar Bose Vs. Abani Kumar (1956)[31] it was held by the Calcutta High Court on a review of the authorities that it was not open to the members of the family even when there is a consensus of all of them to put an end to an endowment in favour of a family idol, and that the observations of Sir Montague Smith in Doorganath Roy v. Ram Chunder (1876)[32] to the contrary were not good law. It is submitted that the law has been correctly laid down in this decision.
- Even if it be held that a consensus of the family can convert Debutter into secular estate, it must be noted that Shebaits qua Shebaits by their dealings with the property cannot give it a different turn. The Shebaits occupy the position of managers merely, and the acts of the manager which amount to breaches of trust cannot put an end to the trust. The consent must be expressed by all the beneficiaries which in the case of a family idol includes all the members of the family, both male and female, who are interested in the worship of the deity. If consent of the entire family is not proved, certain dealings with the property by some members of the family who happen to be Shebaits, as secular property, would not effect any conversion. Of course, if the transactions are such that the entire family took part in them they may be treated as evidence of consent. If the original Debutter character of the property is established, the fact that the property had been partitioned between the members of the family for the better enjoyment thereof, and that there had been sales and mortgages would not show that there was a consensus to give the property a secular turn”.
Private Temple Becoming Public Temple
In Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs. Rannchhoddas Kalidas,[33]it is held that most of the present day Hindu public temples have been founded as public temples, and there are instances of private temples becoming public temples in course of time.It is held further:
- “Some of the private temples have acquired great deal of religious reputation either because of the eminence of its founder or because of other circumstances. They have attracted large number of devotees. Gradually in course of time they have become public temples. … If a temple is proved to have originated as a private temple or its origin is unknown or lost in antiquity then there must be proof to show that it is being used as a public temple.” [34]
Once the private character of the temple is established, more strong proof is necessary to show that the temple was subsequently dedicated to the public.[35]
Public Temple Cannotbe Converted to a Private One
A private temple can be converted to a public one. But vice versa is not legally accepted. It is based on the principles – ‘once a dedication, always stands dedicated’ and ‘once a trust always a trust’.[36]
Private Trust: Settlement of Scheme
Section 92 CPC will not apply to a private trust. It does not necessarily mean that the civil court has no jurisdiction to settle a scheme for the management of a private trust. It is a civil right under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code and governed entirely by the general law of the land which prescribes the remedies for enforcement of civil rights.If the trustee or Shebait is guilty of mismanagement, waste, wrongful alienation of debutter property or other neglect of duties, a suit can be instituted for remedying these abuses of trust. A suit can also be filed for settlement of a scheme for the purpose of effectively carrying out of the trust. [37]
In Thenappa Chettiar Vs. Karuppan Chettiar[38]and Ramchand Vs. Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj[39] the Supreme Court held that a Civil Court may frame a scheme for the purpose of effectively carrying out the object of the trust, even in the case of a private endowment.[40] In Thenappa Chettiar Vs. Karuppan Chettiar it was observed that a suit could be brought in a civil court by any person interested, like contributors to the trust, for the removal of the trustee and for the proper administration of the endowment, if there was a breach of trust or mismanagement on the part of the trustee.
Admission of Public: Not Readily Inferred, Public Temple
In Babu Bhagvan Din Vs. Gir Har Saroop[41] it is held:
- “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. Such an inference, if made from the fact of user by the public, is hazardous, since it would not in general be consonant with Hindu sentiments or practice that worshippers should be turned away and, as worship generally implies offerings of some kind, it is not to be expected that the manager of a private temple should in all circumstances desire to discourage popularity.”
- “Thus the mere fact of the public having been freely admitted to the temple cannot mean that courts should readily infer therefrom dedication to the public.[42] The value of such public user as evidence of dedication depends on the circumstances which give strength to the inference that the user was as of right.” [43]
Revenue Records and Private Ownership
Even if the ownership of property is set-down in revenue records in the name of Deity, it is not treated as inconsistent with its private ownership.[44]
Description of Property as Debutter in a Deed, Not Conclusive
Execution of a deed by itself will not prove dedication. Though it is a piece of evidence, it is not conclusive for determining the dedication. In Paras Nath Thakur Vs. Mohani Dasi Deceased Ana[45] it is held that when a document is solemnly executed and registered, burden is heavy on the person who plead it to be fictitious. [46]
Dedication and Long User and Inference
Long user of income from a land for support of an Idol renders strong corroborative evidence of debutter and that by itself would not lead to an inference that dedication of the property in favour of the public was complete and absolute. Instances of appropriation of property by a person to his own use for a long period will be a good evidence of his right; but, if instances are only recent or few and far between, it leads to inference as to abuse of trust.
In The Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Mysore v. Sri Ratnavarma Heggade, (1977) 1 SCC 525, our Apex Court observed as under:
- “Neither a document nor express words are essential for a dedication for a religious or public purpose in our country. Such dedications may be implied from user permitted for public and religious purposes for sufficient length of time. The conduct of those whose property is presumed to be dedicated for a religious or public purpose and other circumstances are taken into account in arriving at the inference of such a dedication.Although religious ceremonies of Sankalpa and Samarpanam are relevant for proving a dedication, yet, they are not indispensable.”
In R.M. Sundaram v. Sri Kayarohanasamy, AIROnLine 2022 SC 1022, it was held that the extinction of private character of a property can be inferred from the circumstances and facts on record, including sufficient length of time, which shows user permitted for religious or public purposes.
How to Distinguish a Private Temple from a Public Temple
If the dedication with respect to a temple is proved to be for the benefit of members of a family, that temple will be identified as Family Temple. The facts and circumstances considered by our courts in this regard can be placed under two heads:
- 1. Decisive characteristics.
- 2. Indicative or relevant features.
Cardinal Point: Intention of Founder
As stated above, Cardinal Point[47] to solve the question, whether an endowment is private or public, is Intention of Founder – whether specified individuals are to have the right of worship at the shrine, or the general public or specified portion thereof. Similarly, if the founders’ intention is clear from a document[48] of foundation, full importance will be given to it.
Decisive Characteristics:
- i. Is public the beneficiaries
- If the beneficiaries are the unascertainable general public or a class thereof, the temple will be identified as the public temple; if the beneficiaries are ascertainable, it will be characterised as private temple.
- ii. Is there as-of-right user by public
- As of right entry, worship and offerings by public are held to be conclusive peculiarities of public temple. It may be noted that our courts have repeatedly cautioned that mere provision for unobstructed worship in a temple does not amount to ‘as of right user’; and that the facilities provided for public worship, by itself, will not make a temple with otherwise private character, a public temple.[49]
Indicative or Relevant Features
To determine the aforesaid ‘decisive characteristics’ (with regard to: who the beneficiaries are and as of right user) courts analyse various ‘indicative or relevant features’; and from among the heap of evidence the courts uphold certain features as significant and relevant, in the nature and circumstances of each case, in preference to other features.The supreme Court has alerted inKacha Kanti Seva Samity Vs. Kacha Kanti Devi[50]that the question as to whether a religious endowment is of a private nature or of a public nature has to be decided with reference to the facts proved in each case. It is difficult to lay down any test or tests, which may be of universal application.[51]
Following peculiarities are noticeable in support of public nature of the temple:
| 1 | Worship by large number of devotees. | AIR 2007 SC 1917, AIR 1995 SC 167; 2006 AIR SCW 4622; AIR 1995 SC 167, AIR 1970 SC 2025, |
| 2 | Construction of temple by subscription of public. | AIR 1987 SC 2064, AIR 1999 SC 329, AIR 2009 (1) SC 1495, AIR 2007 SC 1917 |
| 3 | Meeting of temple expenditure from the contribution of public | AIR 2009 (1) SC 1495, AIR 1995 SC 167, AIR 1970 SC 2025, AIR 1999 SC 329 |
| 4 | Consciousness of management and devotees in treating the temple. | AIR 1924 PC 44, AIR 1987 SC 2064, AIR 1995 SC 167, AIR 1970 SC 2025, AIR 1999 SC 329, AIR 2009 (1) SC 1495 |
| 5 | Sevas/Poojas, conducted – usually seen in public temples. | AIR 1995 SC 167, AIR 1970 SC 2025, AIR 2009 (1) SC 1495, AIR 2007 SC 1917, AIR 1999 SC 329] |
| 6 | Providing food and shelter for Sadhus and public. | AIR 1999 SC 329, AIR 1972 SC 1621, AIR 1980 SC 514 |
| 7 | Collection boxes for cash and grains from public. | AIR 2009 (1) SC 1495, AIR 2003 SC 1685 |
| 8 | Participation of public in festivals and ceremonies | AIR 2007 SC 1917, AIR 1999 SC 329 |
| 9 | Various poojas on payment and issuance of pamphlets showing details as to poojas. | AIR 2007 SC 1917 |
| 10 | Management – Appointment of Shebaits and managers from strangers to the family of founders. | AIR 1981 SC 798, AIR 1987 SC 2064, AIR 1999 SC 329, AIR 2007 SC 1917, AIR 1995 SC 167, AIR 2003 SC 1685, (2006) 7 SCC 490: 2006 AIR SCW 4622 |
| 11 | Entries in revenue records as to nature of the temple. | AIR 1999 SC 329, AIR 2009 (1) SC 1495, (2006) 7 SCC 490=2006 AIR SCW 4622, AIR 2007 SC 1917, AIR 1995 SC 167 |
| 12 | Exemption from taxes and revenues. | AIR 1987 SC 2064 |
| 13 | Vastness/appearance of temple. | AIR 1960 SC 100, AIR 1987 SC 2064, AIR 1999 SC 329, AIR 2009 (1) SC 1495, AIR 1995 SC 167, AIR 1970 SC 2025, 2007 SC 1917 |
| 14 | Construction of circular roads for processions. | AIR 1924 PC 44, AIR 1999 SC 329 |
| 15 | Installation of Idols outside precincts of residential quarters. | AIR 1987 SC 2064, AIR 1995 SC 167, AIR 1999 SC 329, AIR 2009 (1) SC 1495, 1957 SC 133, AIR 2007 SC 1917, (2006) 7 SCC 490:2006 AIR SCW 4622 |
| 16 | Permanent installation of Deity on pedestal. | AIR 2009 (1) SC 1495; 1957 SC 133 |
| 17 | Procession taking out Idol. | AIR 2009 (1) SC 1495 |
| 18 | Right of public to scrutinize the accounts. | AIR 2007 SC 1917, (2006) 7 SCC 490: 2006 AIR SCW 4622 |
| 19 | Prathishta instead of Utsarga. | AIR 2007 SC 1917 |
| 20 | Recitals of Geetha, Bhagavath, etc. before large number of devotees. | AIR 1999 SC 329 |
| 21 | Placing along with permanent deities, minor deities. | AIR 1999 SC 329 |
| 22 | Existence of a shop in the temple premises for sale of bhog articles. | AIR 1999 SC 329 |
| 23 | Existence of a tank – it is usually a characteristic of public temple. | AIR 1999 SC 329 |
| 24 | Existence of Dharmasala for visitors. | AIR 1999 SC 329 |
| 25 | Cash allowance from treasury in the name of Deity. | AIR 1995 SC 167 |
| Finite group of identifiable individuals | 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 177 | |
| Rock inscription specifically states that the charity of feeding the Brahmins | AIR 2019 SC 4050 (2020) 5 Mad LJ 331(SC) |
Following peculiarities support private nature of the temple
| 1 | Family treated temple as a private property | AIR 1940 PC 7, AIR 1999 SC 329, AIR 2003 SC 1685, AIR 1971 SC 2057, AIR 1987 SC 2064, AIR 1981 SC 798 |
| 2 | Consciousness of managers and devotees | AIR 1972 SC 1716, AIR 1970 SC 2025, AIR 1976 SC 871, AIR 1987 SC 2064, AIR 1999 SC 329; (2011) 13 SCC 431 |
| 2 | Dedication of extensive family property and no provision made for offering or contribution from public. | AIR 2009 SC 1495; AIR 1987 SC 2064; AIR 2003 SC 1685, AIR 1981 SC 798 |
| 3 | Provision for family members to reimburse the manager/ Shebait from the family. | AIR 1981 SC 798. |
| 4 | Vesting of management in family. | AIR 2003 SC 1685, AIR 1981 SC 798 |
| 5 | Grant of property not in the name of Idol/temple, but in favour of founder. | AIR 1940 PC 7; AIR 1987 SC 2064, (2006) 7 SCC 490: 2006 AIR SCW 4622 |
| 6 | Rent profits appropriated by family. | AIR 1940 PC 7, AIR 1999 SC 329 |
Read Blogs: Common Law of TRUSTS in India
- General Principles
- Dedication and Vesting
- Trustees and Management
- Breach of Trust
- Suits by or against Trusts
- Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
- Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
- Constitutional Principles
- Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
- General
[1] Quoted in Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji Vs. S P Sahi Special Officer In Charge of Hindu Religious Trust: AIR 1959 SC 942.
[2] AIR 1957 SC 133
[3] Deoki Nandan Vs.Murlidhar: AIR 1957 SC 133 is Quoted and followed in: Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Reli. Endts: AIR 1981 SC 798; State of Bihar Vs. Charusila Dasi: AIR 1959 SC 1002; Dhaneshwarbuwa Vs. Charity Commr., AIR 1976 SC 871; Pratapsinhji N Desai Vs. Dy. Chrty. Commr. Gujarat: AIR 1987 SC 2064; Jammi Raja Rao Vs. Anjaneya Swami Temple Valuair 1992 SC 1110; Gedela Satchidananda Vs. Dy. Commr. Endts, A P AIR 2007 SC 1917.
[4] Quoted in State of West Bengal Vs. Sri.Sri Lakshmi Janardan Thakur, (2006) 7SCC 490: 2006 AIR (SCW) 4622; Yelandau Arasikere Deshikendra Sammthana Vs.Gangadharaiah: 2007-5 AIR Kar R 565: 2008-4 Kat LJ 323.
[5]Idol of Sri Renganathaswamy Vs. PK Thoppulan Chettiar:(2020) 5 Mad LJ 331(SC); MJ Thulasiraman Vs. Comr, HR & CE: AIR 2019 SC 4050.
[6] AIR 1957 SC 133. See also: Commr. of Endowments Vs. VittalRao: AIR 2005 SC 454; Bala Shankar MahaShanker Bhattjee Vs. Charity Commr. Gujarat State: AIR 1995 SC 167, Jammi Raja Rao Vs. Anjaneya Swami Temple Valu: AIR 1992 SC 1110, Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Religious Endowments Orissa: AIR 1981 SC 798, Commr. For Hindu Religious And Charitable Endowments Mysore Vs. Ratnavarma Hegade: AIR 1977 SC 1848, Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Purshottambuwa Owner of Shri Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan Vs. Charity Commr. State of Bombay Citations: AIR 1976 SC 871; Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das Vs. Surajnarayan Das: AIR 1967 SC 256,
[7] AIR 1957 SC 133.
[8] Deoki Nandan Vs. Murlidhar (AIR 1957 SC 133): Cardinal Point, intention of founder – Followed in State of Bihar Vs. CharusilaDasi AIR 1959 SC 1002; Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Vs. Char. Commr. Bom., AIR 1976 SC 871 Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Reli. Endts, AIR 1981 SC 798 Pratapsinhji N Desai Vs. Dy Char. Commr. Gujt, AIR 1987 SC 2064 Jammi Raja Rao Vs. Anjaneya Swami Temple Valuair, 1992 SC 1110 Gedela Satchid. Murthy Vs. Dy Commr. Endts, A P, AIR 2007 SC 1917.
[9] AIR 1981 SC 798; (quoted in Kuldip Chand Vs. Advocate General to Government of H P: AIR 2003 SC 1685).
[10] AIR 1972 SC 2069
[11] Quoted in Sitaram Agarwal Vs. Subarata Chandra: AIR 2008 SC 952; Controller of Estate Duty West Bengal Vs. Usha Kumar: AIR 1980 SC 312
[12] AIR 1941 PC 38; Quoted in Kuldip Chand Vs. AG to Government of H P: AIR 2003 SC 1685. Terms of the document, important:1951 SCR 1122; Sri. Govindlalji Vs. State of Rajasthan: AIR 1963 SC 1638; R Venugopala Reddiar Vs. Krishnaswamy: AIR 1971 Mad 262; Kuldip Chand Vs. A G to Govt of H P: AIR 2003 SC 1685. Importance of document: Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Endts.: AIR 1981 SC 798; Dr. BK Mukherjea, J. on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts: Page 188.
[13](2020) 5 Mad LJ 331(SC)
[14] Hindu Religious Endowments Vs. LakshmindraTirtha Swamiar: AIR 1963 SC 1638
[15]AIR 2000 SC 1421
[16] KM Senthivel Pillai Vs. Kulandaivel Pillai: 1970-2 MADLJ 555; P. Jayader Vs. Thiruneelakanta Nadar Chinnaneela Nadar: ILR 1966-2 Mad 92
[17] Quoted in: Commr. of Endowments Vs. Sri Radhakanta Deb: 1969-35 CutLT 992.
[18] AIR 2003 SC 1685.
[19] AIR 1979 SC 1682.
[20] See: Narayanan Vs. Nil: AIR 2005 Mad. 17; M Ashok Kumar Vs. N Janarthana: 2013(7) Mad. LJ 273; T C Chacko Vs. Annamma: AIR 1994 Ker. 107. Varghese Vs. St. Peters and Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church: (2017) 15 SCC 333
[21] 1998 AIR (SCW) 3945: (1998) 5 SCC 588. See also: Pramatha Nath Vs. Pradyumna Kumar, (1925) 52 IA 245; Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Chorone, AIR 1979 SC 1682
[22]AIR 1956 Cal. 308
[23] AIR 1974 Cal 126. Appeal Judgment: Kali Kinkor Ganguly Vs. Panna Banerjee AIR 1974 SC 1932
[24] Karumankavu Devaswon Kshethram Trust Board Members Vs. Damodaran Nair: ILR 2008 (1) Ker 742; Rajasekharan Naicker Vs. Govindankutty 1983 Ker LJ 506. Kunhanandan Nambiar Vs. Kunhappa Nambiar: 1961 Ker LJ 1141
[25]Paramasivam Vs. SV Ravikumar: 1998-1 LW 37
[26]AIR 1951 Ori. 60
[27]AIR 1933 Cal. 286; ILR 60 Cal. 54
[28] AIR 1979 SC 1682.
[29] Quoted in Sri Marthanda Varma Vs State of Kerala, 2020 Supreme (SC) 444.
[30]AIR 1951 Ori. 60
[31]AIR 1956 Cal. 308
[32] 4 IndApp52
[33] AIR 1970 SC 2025.
[34] See also: Mahadeva Vs. Commr, H. R. and C. E 1956 (1) MLJ 309; Marua Dei Alias Maku Dei Vs. Muralidhar Nanda AIR 1999 SC 329; Teki Venkata Ratnam Vs. Commr. of Endowment AIR 2001 SC 2436.
[35] See: Commr. of HR&CE Admn Dept. Vs. N Sundaraswami Gounder, (2001) 2 Mad LJ 737; Chennammal Vs. Commr. of HR&CE, (1973) 2 Mad LJ 442; TD Gopalan Vs. Commr of Hindu R & C Endts, AIR 1972 SC 1716
[36] Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr of Hindu Religious Endts: AIR 1981 SC 798; Bhagwan Din Vs. Gir Har Saroop: AIR 1940 PC 7; Varghese Vs. St. Peters and Pauls Syrian Orthodox Church: (2017) 15 SCC 333.
[37] Cheriyathu Vs. Parameswaran Namboodiripad: 1953 Ker LT 125; Also 1953 Ker LT 117; AIR 1922 P. C. 253: Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick: AIR 1925 PC 139. Also see: ManoharMukherji Vs. Raja Peary Mohan Mukherji:24 CWN 478; Bimal Krishna Vs. Iswar Radha Balla: 1937 Cal 338; Rajasekharan Naicker Vs. Govindankutty 1983 KerLJ 506.
[38]AIR 1968 SC 915. Followed in: Sujan Mohinder Charitable Trust VS MohinderKaur: 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 281; Radhamohan Dev Vs.Nabakishore Naik: AIR 1979 Ori 181. Brindaban Vs. Ram Lakhan Lalji: AIR 1975 All 255.
[39]AIR 1970 SC 532
[40]Ramchand Vs. Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj: AIR 1970 SC 532
[41] AIR 1940 PC 7.
[42] See also: Jadunath Roy Vs. Parameswar Mullick: (AIR 1940 P C 11), Sri. GovindlaljiVs. State of Rajasthan: (AIR 1963 SC 1638); Pratapsinhji N. Desai Vs. Deputy Charity Commr. Gujarat: Mundacheri Koman Vs. Thachangat Puthan Vittil Achuthan Nair: (AIR 1934 PC 230), Babu Bhagwan Din Vs. Gir Har Saroop: (AIR 1940 PC 7) The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs. Mahanth Sri. Biseshwar Das: (AIR 1971 SC 2057), Shri Vallabharaya Swami Varu Vs. Deevi Hanumancharyulu: (AIR 1979 SC 1147).
[43] See also: Bihar State Board Religious Trust Patna Vs. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das (AIR 1971 SC 2057); Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Religious Endts: AIR 1981 SC 798; Marua Dei Alias Maku Dei Vs. Muralidhar Nanda: AIR 1999 SC 329; Kuldip Chand Vs. A G to Government of H P: AIR 2003 SC 1685; Gurpur Guni V N Prabhu Vs. B. C. Achia: AIR 1977 SC 1192.
[44] 1964 KLT 1034; relied on in 2014 (3) KLT 497, 2013 (3) KLT 1017.
[45] AIR 1959 SC 1204
[46] ILR 18 Cal. 10; ILR 42 All. 295.
[47] DeokiNandan Vs. Murlidhar: AIR 1957 SC 133.
[48]Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Reli. Endts Orissa: AIR 1981 SC 798.
[49] Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Reli. Endts Orissa: AIR 1981 SC 798; GoswamiShri Mahalaxmi Vahuji Vs. Ranchhoddas: AIR 1970 SC 2025; Pratapsinhji N Desai Vs. Dy Charity Commr. Guj, AIR 1987 SC 2064; AIR 1995 SC 167; Marua Dei Alias Maku Dei Vs. Muralidhar Nanda: AIR 1999 SC 329; Kuldip Chand Vs. A G to Government of H P: AIR 2003 SC 1685; Gedela SatchidanandaVs. Dy Commr. Endwts AP: AIR 2007 SC 1917. As of right user: Gedela Satchidananda Vs. D Commr. EndwtsDeptt AP: AIR 2007 SC 1917; Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Rel. Endowts. Orissa: AIR 1981 SC 798; Bihar St. Brd. Religious Trust Vs. Mahant Biseshwar Das: AIR 1971 SC 2057; Marua Dei Alias Maku Dei Vs. Muralidhar Nanda: AIR 1999 SC 329; Kuldip Chand Vs. A G to Government of H P: AIR 2003 SC 1685; Gurpur Guni Venkataraya NarashimaVs. B. C. Achia: AIR 1977 SC 1192.
[50] AIR 2004 SC 608
[51]See also: Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Religious Endts: AIR 1981 SC 798; Kuldip Chand Vs. A G to Government of H P: AIR 2003 SC 1685; T D Gopalan Vs. Commr. of Hindu R & C Endts AIR 1972 SC 1716.
