Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam

Synopsis

1. Introduction
2. Transfer of Property To or By Trust & S. 5 of the TP Act 
3. Can transfer be made to or by Unregd. Associations
4. Effect of Common Law in Sec. 5 TP Act
5. Alienation for Necessity
6. No Power to Alienate the Site of the Temple
7. Variation of Trust
8. Trustee Cannot Sell and Invest Price for Larger Income
9. Fundamental Principles Cannot Be Altered
10. Degree of Prudence Expected in Sale
11. Alienation of Shebaitship
12. Whether Similar to Management of Estate of an Infant Heir
13. Alienation: Doctrine of ‘Conditions of Modern Life’
14. Abuse of Trust – Dedication Will Remain Valid
15. Is Mortgage Valid Beyond Period-of-office of Transferor
16. Perpetuities and Alienation of Trust Property
17. Sale in Public Auction
18. Shifting of a church

Introduction

Trust is a relationship arising out of confidence reposed in trustee and it casts upon the trustee a special duty of loyalty to the purpose or object of the trust.  There is no principle of law or precedent which permits transfer of a public trust (as such) in favour of another trustee or body of persons not intended by the founder, even if it may appear profitable to the institution in certain respects.[1] The trustee himself has to manage the trust property, prudently, for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust. He stands in a fiduciary position.[2]The endowment and its dedication will remain valid even if there is misappropriation or abuse of trust by the trustees subsequent to a valid dedication.[3]

Alienation for Necessity

In certain circumstances the trustee holds the power to dispose of the property entrusted to his management,[4]  though it can be exercised sparingly and cautiously.As a general rule, immovable trust properties entrusted to the trustee are, by their very nature,[5] inalienable.[6] A trustee including a Shebait can alienate trust property only in exceptional cases,such as legal necessity,[7]for the benefit or preservation of the property etc.[8] In Prosunno Kumari Debya Vs. Golab Chand Baboo,[9]the Privy Council, as early as in 1875, it was observed as under:

• “But, notwithstanding that property devoted to religious purposes is, as a rule, inalienable, it is, in their Lordships’ opinion, competent for the shebait of property dedicated to the worship of an idol, in the capacity as shebait and manager of the estate, to incur debts and borrow money for the proper expenses of keeping up the religious worship, repairing the temples or other possessions of the idol, defending hostile litigious attacks, and other like objects. The power, however, to incur such debts must be measured by the existing necessity for incurring them.”

A Shebait can sell the property only for benefit of the estate.[10]An alienation or permanent lease of lands dedicated to a religious endowment is valid only if it is made for a legal  necessity[11]It is not justified by a local custom, or by a practice of the institution, to grant lands in a particular manner.[12]

The Privy Council, in Hanoomanh Persaudh Panday Vs. Mussumat Babooee Munraj Koonweree (1856)[13] considered the power of the manager for alienation of the joint family property and held that the lender is bound to inquire into the necessities of the loan. In Sri Krishan Das Vs. Nathu Ram (1927)[14] it was held by the Privy Council that where the purchaser acted in good faith and after due enquiry, and was able to show that the sale itself was justified by legal necessity, he was under no obligation to enquire into the application of any surplus and was, therefore, not bound to make repayment of such surplus to the members of the family challenging the sale.

Mulla’s Treatise on ‘Principles of Hindu Law’ states as under:

• “As a general rule of Hindu Law, property given for the maintenance of religious worship, and all charities connected with it, is inalienable. It is competent, however, for the Shebait or Mahanth in charge of the property, in his capacity of Shebait or Mahanth and as Manager of the property, to incur debts and borrow money on a mortgage of the property for the purpose of keeping up the religious worship, and for the benefit and preservation of the property. The power, however, to incur debts must be measured by an existing necessity for incurring them.”[15]

Shebait or Mahant is only a custodian of property.He has no beneficial interest pertaining to the owner, in the endowment and in the property entrusted to him. His right in the property is not unqualified so that he could pass title over the same in favour of a vendee or to a lessee. The vendee or lessee derives right to the property of the temple or Math if only there is legal necessity.[16]

A Shebait or Mahant will not be justified in selling land owned by the temple or Mutt, solely for the purpose of getting capital to embark in the money-lending business, even if such an act will be benefited by larger returns by way of interest.[17] But, the sale of an inconveniently situated, encumbered and unprofitable property to purchase in its stead another property,[18] or for the construction of a temple for the better housing of the idols,[19] may be justified on the principle, ‘benefit the estate’.

The common law in this regard requires that the extent of the property subjected to sale or encumbrance should not be beyond the limit sufficient to meet the necessity.[20]

Alienation by Mahanth as Personal Property

An alienation of a trust property by the Mahant as his personal property is also void ab initio. In Hemanta Kumari Vs. Iswar Sridhar Jiu[21] Mukherjea, J., held:

• “If the manager transfers the property beloning to the deity as his own property asserting his own personal interest in the same, his act is adverse to the trust. The transferee in such cases would acquire no title to the property and his possession would be unlawful from the beginning. A long line of cases has clearly expressed the distinction between alienations made by the trustee in his professed capacity as a trustee and alienations by the trustee of trust property treating it as his personal property”.[22]

Public Trust Depends on Charity and Donatins

Referring Sec. 14 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950, it is observed in Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar,  2022-11 SCALE 1,  2022-17 SCR 173, as under:

• “A Public Trust invariably depends on charity done by individuals by donating immovable property or by making cash donations.”

Eventhough the above observation is made invoking Sec. 14 of the BPT Act, it is clear that it is a common law principle applicable to all Public Trusts.

Legal Obligations of Trustees to Administer and Give Effect to Objects of Trust

It is held further in Khasgi (Devi Ahilyabai Holkar Charities) Trust, Indore v. Vipin Dhanaitkar,  2022-11 SCALE 1,  as under:

• “Though in law, the assets and properties of a Public Trust vest in its Trustees, they hold the Trust property in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the Trust. They hold the property for giving effect to the objects of the Public Trust. A Trust property cannot be alienated unless it is for the benefit of the Trust and/or its beneficiaries. The Trustees are not expected to deal with the Trust property, as if it is their private property. It is the legal obligation of the Trustees to administer the Trust and to give effect to the objects of the Trust. …. There are statutory constraints on the power of the Trustees to alienate the property of a Public Charitable Trust. …. The Trustees are the custodians of Trust properties. The Trustees have a duty to safeguard the interests of the beneficiaries of the Public Trust. That is how, a provision in Public Trust Law, like Sec.  14 of the Public Trusts Act, is of importance. This provision seeks to protect the Trust property in the hands of the Trustees from unwarranted alienations.”  

Sale by Mahanth Otherwise Than for Legal Necessity

A Mahant is only the custodian of property and not the owner thereof. He has no right to pass, title or interest in favour of the vendee by execution of a sale-deed unless it is shown that there was legal necessity of the same. The purchaser of such property has the duty to discharge the burden of proof that the sale-deed executed by Mahant in his favour was for legal necessity of such institution and, hence, the sale-deed will be a void document if the duty is not discharged.  Therefore, cancellation of such a document is not necessary as it is clearly without title and authority.[23]

Can be Equated to Sale of Property of a Minor

Alienation of debenture property can be equated to the sale of the property of a minor.[24]Mulla’s ‘Treatise on Principles of Hindu law’reads as under:

• “The power of a Shebait or a Mohunt to alienate debutter property is analogous to that of a manager for an infant heir as defined by the Judicial Committee in Hanooman Pershand Vs. Mt. Babooee, (1856) 6 Moo Ind App 393 (PC). As held in that case, he has no power to alienate dubutter property except in a case of need or for the benefit of the estate. He is not entitled to sell the property for the purpose of investing the price of it so as to bring in an income larger than that derived from the property itself. Nor can he, except for legal necessity grant a permanent lease of debutter property, though he may create proper derivative tenures and estates conformable to usage.”[25]

No Power to Alienate the Temple or its Site

The endowment as a whole can never be the subject-matter of alienation. It cannot be permitted even pointing out the ground, legal necessity. Such a step will destroy the basic principles upon which the trust is founded. A trust is what designed by the founder. It will annihilate the very purpose and the object for which the endowment was created.[26] Under any circumstance, a Shebait or Mahant has no power to alienate the institution they hold. Such attempts, if any, will be void ab initio.[27]

The Calcutta High Court in Panna Banerjee Vs Kali Kinkor Ganguli[28] held that the legal necessity of the deity was not so unruly that it could rule over the deity.Such transfers are illegal and void in its inception. Hindu law does not permit transfer of religious endowments for pecuniary consideration.It is held in this decision as under:

• “The deity is entitled to be worshipped in its permanent abode. Its permanent residence cannot be disturbed. The idol cannot be removed like a chattel from such a temple by its shebaits. That temple cannot be vivisected. It is impartible. No part of it can be sold even for the deity’s legal necessity. It is res extra commercium.
• To sell a part of the temple is to endanger the very existence of the consecrated idol and to put an end to the sanctity attached to it. If saleable, it can be sold to any non-Hindu. He, being a disbeliever in the Hindu faith and religion, shall have no respect or regard for the sanctity attached to the place of worship. If saleable, it can be passed on from hand to hand in the open market. The very argument of Mr. Roy is a shocking inroad to the Hindu Philosophy and the Faith. It is opposed to the basic concept of the Hindu Jurisprudence. If there is any such custom it must be held to be unreasonable, illegal and opposed to public policy and should be treated as null and void.”

The Supreme Court, in Kali Kinkor Ganguly Vs. Panna Banerjee,[29]setting aside the appeal, it is held that neither the temple nor the deities nor the Shebaiti right can be transferred, invoking the doctrine of transfer for the benefit of the deity.[30]

Transfer of Institution Itself

An institution like math, temple, mosque, church or school cannot be transferred by a transfer deed. Untwalia, J., in Bishop SK Patro Vs. State of Bihar[31] observed as under:

• “To all intents and purposes, the transfer of the trusteeship or the properties of the institution may vest the right to administer the school in the transferee. Yet it is difficult to take the view that the educational organisation which was founded, created or brought into existence and thus established by one founder by such transfer becomes transferred to, and re-established by, the transferee. If I may draw an analogy from our experience of religious institutions like math, temple, mosque or church, it has never been heard that the institution has ever been transferred by a transfer deed.What can be the subject-matter of transfer is the property appertaining to the institution including the right of management. But in a continuing institution when its property or trusteeship or right to management is transferred, I cannot persuade myself to take the view that by such transfer, the transferee brings into existence or re-brings into existence, to quote the phrase used by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and establishes the institution within the meaning of Article 26 or 30 of the Constitution.”

Sale of Math properties in execution of decree against Mahant

Sale of the properties of a Math in execution of a decree against the Mahant is also void.[32] A Mahanth is not the owner of the surplus income of a Mutt. It is clear from the fact that after his death the savings are not regarded as his personal property and cannot be proceeded against for satisfaction of his personal debts.[33] A Mahant is therefore accountable if he uses the surplus fund for purposes alien to those for which the institution was founded.

Burden on the Alienee

In all cases where a public trust property is sold or mortgaged, the burden will be on the alienee to prove that it was for the benefit of the institution or was for legal necessarily.[34]In Sri Raghavendra Swami Mutt Vs. Panchapakesa Iyer[35] it is observed by the Madras High Court as under:

• “It is well-settled that the trustee is not prevented from alienating the trust property, but the alienation of the mutt property should be bona fide and there must be actual pressure on the estate or there must be some danger which was sought to be averted or there must be benefit to be conferred upon the trust by such transaction. The transaction is challenged nearly after a period of 44 years and that is also a relevant fact in considering the question of validity of the transaction and the burden is on the alienee to show that the alienation was for the benefit of the trust. The alienee must establish that the alienation was for the benefit of the trust.”

Burden of Proof and Recitals in The Deeds

Our Apex Court in Iswar Gopal Vs. Pratapmal Bagaria (1951)[36] it was observed that if all the original parties to the transfer, and those who could have given evidence on the relevant points such as legal necessity, have passed away, a recital consisting of the principal circumstances of the case assumes importance and cannot be lightly set aside.

However, in Rani Vs. Santa Bala (1971)[37]  the Supreme Court held that though the recitals are admissible in evidence, their value would vary according to the circumstances in which the transaction was entered into and the weight to be attached to the recitals varies according to the circumstances. The Supreme Court also held that where the evidence which could be brought before the Court is within the special knowledge of the person who seeks to set aside the sale and is withheld by him, such evidence being normally not available to the alienee, the recitals go to his aid with greater force and the court may be justified in appropriate cases in raising an inference against the party seeking to set aside the sale on the ground of absence of legal necessity wholly or partially when he withholds evidence in his possession.

Voidable Alienations

Where an alienation of endowed properties is for valuable consideration, but not for legal necessity or benefit to the institution, the same enures for the lifetime of the Mahant alone and becomes voidable at the instance of the succeeding Mahant.[38]

Trustee Cannot Sell Property and Invest Price for Larger Income

A trustee is not entitled to sell trust property for the purpose of investing the price so as to bring income larger than that derived from the property itself.[39]

Mayne’s Treatise on Hindu Law reads on this point as follows:

• “It is beyond the powers of a manager to grant a permanent lease at a fixed rent in the absence of unavoidable necessity (See: Talaniappa Chetty Vs. Streemath Devasikamony, AIR 1917 PC 33); for, to fix the rent, though adequate at the time, in perpetuity in lieu of giving the endowment the benefit of an augmentation of a variable rent from time to time would be a breach of duty on the part of the manager.”[40]

Degree of Prudence Expected in Sale

Our Apex Court pointed out in Cyrus Rustom Patel VS Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra[41] that ordinarily, the trust property is to be protected; and that ‘in case its condition was not good, there could be several other ways to improve it; it could not have been achieved by virtually throwing away the property’.

It was observed in Jagat Narain Vs. Mathura Das[42] that the degree of prudence expected from a manager of an endowment would be the prudence which an ordinary man would exercise with the knowledge available to him and the transaction would have to be judged not by the result, but by what might have been expected to be its results at the time it was entered into.

While considering the sale of an old house by the manager of a temple, which was not in a dilapidated condition but it required extensive repairs, it was held in BehariLal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabhji[43] that the sale was neither a prudent act nor it was for the benefit of the estate.

In KPLS Palaniappa Chetty Vs. Shreenath Devasikamony Pandara Sannadhi[44]  it was laid down that a Shebait would not be justified in selling debutter land solely for the purpose of getting capital to embark in the money lending business. Mulla’s Hindu Law reads:

• “He (Shebait) is not entitled to sell the property for the purpose of investing the price of it so as to bring in an income larger than that derived from the property itself.”[45]

Alienation: Doctrine of ‘Conditions of Modern Life’

In KC Kappor Vs. Radhika Devi,[46] the Supreme Court has held that the expression ‘compelling necessity’ (qua alienation of property held by a trustee-Kartha) must be interpreted with due regard to the ‘conditions of modern life’. The Apex Court quoted from with approval the Bombay decision, Nagindas Maneklal Vs. Mahomed Yusuf Mithcella[47].

Is Mortgage Valid Beyond Period-of-office of Transferor Shebait?

In Iswar Radha Kanta Jew Thakur Vs. Gopinath Das[48] it was held that the mortgage effected by the Shebait without legal necessity and not for the benefit of the deity was not void and the mortgagor acquires some interest in the mortgaged property, that is, the interest of the Shebait which enures only during the incumbency of the Shebait. It was further held that the Shebait may alienate by way of lease, mortgage or sale the debutter property even without legal necessity and not for the benefit of the deity but in such a case the purchaser would not acquire title in the debutter property beyond the period during which the Shebait continues in office.

Dr. B K Mukherjea “On The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts” enlightens us as under:

• “The sale of a Debutter property by a Shebait is prima facie an act amounting to a breach of trust, and to make it binding on the endowment, imperative necessity must be proved, or else it must be established that the purchaser did make enquiries and satisfy himself in good faith that such necessity existed. When there is no justifying necessity for a sale of Debutter property, is the transaction void altogether and the purchaser acquires no interest in the purchased property. The answer is the same as has been given already in the case of alienation by way of permanent lease. The transfer is valid during the lifetime or the tenure of office of the alienating manager, and the possession of the alienee becomes adverse to the endowment when the alienating Shebait ceases to be manager by reason of death, retirement or otherwise.”[49]

Similarly in H. S. Gour’s Hindu Code[50]  the legal position has been explained in the following words:

• “An alienation of such property, made by its manager for a purpose other than legal necessity or benefit is not valid beyond the term of the manager’s office, or his death, nor can such alienation, if consented to by his successor, inure beyond his own term.”[51]

Perpetuities and Alienation of Trust Property

S.14 of the TP Act lays down rule against perpetuity as under: 

• “No transfer of property can take operate to create an interest which is to take effect after the life time of one or more persons living at the date of such transfer, and the minority of some person who shall be in existence at the expiration of that period, and to whom, if he attains full age, the interest created is to belong.”

Apart from S. 18 of the T.P. Act (which states that the restrictions in S. 14 shall not apply in a case of transfer for the benefit of public), Mayne’s Hindu Law[52] speaks that S. 14 of the T.P. Act, and similarly worded S. 114 of the Indian Succession Act, do not apply to gifts or bequests for religious and charitable purposes. 

Sale in Public Auction

In R. Venugopal Naidu Vs. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities[53] the Apex Court has held that property belonging to religious and charitable endowments should not be sold in private negotiations and the same can be sold in public auction after giving wide publicity.

Alienation and (State) Public Trusts Acts

(State) Public Trusts Acts impose restrictions for sale, mortgage, exchange, lease etc. of immovable properties of public trust. From Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act it is apparent that sale, exchange or gift of any immovable property or lease, extending beyond ten years in the case of agricultural land, or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non-agricultural land or a building, belonging to a public trust shall not be valid without previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner. It is also open to the Charity Commissioner, in exercise of power of Section 36(2) of the Act, to revoke the sanction, given under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 36 of the Act, on the ground that the sanction had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or those material facts have been suppressed while obtaining sanction. The intendment of the revocation provision is also to sub-serve the interest, benefit, and protection of the Trust and its property.

• Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act reads as under:
• “Alienation of immovable property of public trust:
• (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of trust –
  • (a) no sale, exchange or gift of any immovable property, and
  • (b) no lease for a period exceeding ten years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non-agricultural land or a building, belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner. Sanction may be accorded subject to such conditions as the Charity Commissioner may think fit to impose, regard being had to the interest, benefit or protection of the trust;
  • (c) if the Charity Commissioner is satisfied that in the interest of any public trust any immovable property thereof should be disposed of, he may, on application, authorise any trustee to dispose of such property subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, regard being had to the interest or benefit or protection of the trust.
• (2) The Charity Commissioner may revoke the sanction given under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) on the ground that such sanction was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation made to him or by concealing from the Charity Commissioner, facts material for the purpose of giving sanction; and direct the trustee to take such steps within a period of one hundred and eighty days from the date of revocation (or such further period not exceeding in the aggregate one year as the Charity Commissioner may from time to time determine) as may be specified in the direction for the recovery of the property.
• (3) No sanction shall be revoked under this section unless the person in whose favour such sanction has been made has been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the sanction should not be revoked.
• (4) If, in the opinion of the Charity Commissioner, the trustee has failed to take effective steps within the period specified in sub-section (2), or it is not possible to recover the property with reasonable effort or expense, the Charity Commissioner may assess any advantage received by the trustee and direct him to pay compensation to the trust equivalent to the advantage so assessed.

 In Cyrus Rustom Patel VS Charity Commissioner Maharashtra (2017)[54]  our Supreme Court pointed out that ‘the power to grant sanction has to be exercised by the Charity Commissioner, taking into consideration three classic requirements i.e. “the interest, benefit, and protection” of the Trust. The expression that sanction may be accorded subject to such conditions as Charity Commissioner may think fit under section 31(1)(b) and Section 36 (1)(c). The Charity Commissioner has to be objectively satisfied that property should be disposed of in the interest of public trust; in doing so, he has right to impose such conditions as he may think fit, taking into account aforesaid triple classic requirements’.

Transfer of Property To or By Trust & S. 5 of the TP Act 

See Chapter: Vesting of Property in Trusts

Limitationto Challenge Voidable Sale

See: Chapter Limitation

---

[1]      Abdul Kayua Vs. Alibhai: AIR 1963 SC 309: Referred to in Arjan Singh Vs. Deputy Mal Jain ILR 1982-1  Del 11.

[2]      Pawan Kumar Vs. Babulal: 2019-4 SCC 367;

CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay: 2011- 8 SCC 497

[3]      ILR 1936 Cal. 420.Kuldip Chand Vs.A G Government of H P (AIR 2003 SC 1685); AIR 1954 M. 1110.

[4] RK Joshi Vs. State of Karnataka: 1984-1 KantLJ 158.

[5]      Ratilal Panachand Gandhi Vs. State of Bombay: AIR 1954  SC 388.

[6]      Hanooman Persaud Panday v. Babooee Munraj Koonweree (1856) 6 MIA 393 (PC) Referred to in: Sri Raghavendra Swami VS Panchapakesa Iyer: AIR 2005  Mad 129

[7]      Ramchandraji Maharaj. Vs. Lalji Singh: AIR 1959 Pat 305; Referred to in: Ranjit Mullick VS Aparesh Mullick: 2018 0 Supreme(Cal) 483;

[8]      Iswar Gopal Vs. Pratapmal Bagaria: AIR 1951 SC 214, Palanniappa Chetty Vs. Sreemath Devasikamony Pandara Sannadhi: AIR 1917 PC 33; Balmukand Vs. Kamla Wati: AIR 1964 SC 1385; Radhakrishnadas Vs. Kaluram: AIR 1967 SC 574;  Jagat Narain Vs. Mathura Das: AIR 1928 All 454; A. Subrahmanian Asari Vs. Jayadevan Nair: AIR 1985 , Mad 372;  B Ranga Rao Vs. G Venkata Krishna Rao: AIR1996 AP 5; D. J. Prasad Vs. D. Vs. Subbaiah: AIR 1973 A P 214; Durga Prasad Vs. Jewdhari Singh: AIR 1936 Cal 116;  Ram Sundar Vs. Lachhmi Narain: AIR 1929 PC 143;  SurajBhan Singh Vs. Sah Chain Sukh: AIR 1927 PC 244; In the matter of A. T. Vasudevan: AIR 1949 Mad 260;  Sengoda Goundan Vs. Muthu Vellappa Goundan: AIR 1955 Mad 531;  Medikendhri Vs. Venkatayya: AIR 1953 Mad 210; Krishnamoorthi Vs. Nataraja Iyer, AIR 1949 Mad 67; Sengoda Goundan Vs. Muthu Vellappa Goundan, AIR 1955 Mad 531; Chheda Lai Vs. Ujiarey Lal, AIR 1987 All 127.

[9] (1875)  LR 2 Ind. App. 145

[10] Bhagauti Prasad KhetanVs. LaxminathjiMaharaj: AIR 1985 All 228.

[11]    Shridhar  Vs.  Jagannathji Temple, A I R 1976 S C 1860. Ram Chandraji Maharaj  Vs. Lalji Singh, AIR 1959 Pat 305. Refered to in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan  Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228. See also: JagatNarain Vs. Mathura Das, AIR 1928 All 454, Ram Chandraji Maharaj Vs. Lalji Singh, AIR 1959 Pat 305; Behari Lal Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabhji, AIR 1961 All 73; KPLS Palaniappa Chetty Vs. Shreenath vasikamonyndarannadhi: AIR 1917 PC 33, Sridhar Vs. Sri Jagannath Temple, AIR 1976 SC 1860; IswarRadhaKanta Jew Thakur   Vs. Gopinath Das, AIR 1960 Cal 741.

[12]    Palaniappa Chetty Vs. Devasikamony Pandara, 44 Ind App 147: AIR 1917 PC 33; Shibessouree Debai Vs. Mothooranath Acharjo, (1869) 13 Moo Ind. App 270 (PC); Sridhar Suar  Vs. Jagannath Temple: AIR1976 SC 1860.

[13] (1856) 6 Moo Ind App 393 (PC)

[14] AIR 1927 PC 37

[15] Quoted in: AIR 1976  All 64

[16] Sridhar Suar Vs. ShriJagan Nath Temple: AIR 1976 SC 1860. Murti Shivji Maharaj Birajman Asthal MohallaVs Mathura Das Chela Naval Das Bairagi: 2018-8 ADJ 843; 2018-130 All LR 591

[17] Palaniappa Chetty v. Deivasikamony, 11 IA 147; Murti Shivji Maharaj Birajman Asthal Mohalla Vs Mathura Das Chela Naval Das Bairagi: 2018-8 ADJ 843; 2018-130 All LR 591

[18]    Sadhu Saran Prasad Vs. Brahmadeo Prasad: AIR 1921 Pat 99; Jado Singh Vs. Nathu Singh:  AIR 1926 All 511; Sital Prasad Singh Vs. Mander: AIR 1939 Pat 370

[19]    Ramsaroop Dass Vs. Ramnachhaya: AIR 1945 Pat 326

[20]    Muttu Swamy Vs. M. Swamiyar: AIR 1916 Madras 332; Swamy Hathiramjee Mutt Vs. Komma Venkatamuni: 2018 5 ALD 428; 2018 4 ALT 354

[21]    AIR 1946 Cal 473

[22] Quoted in: Murti Shivji Maharaj Birajman Asthal MohallaVs Mathura Das Chela Naval Das Bairagi 2018 8 ADJ 843; 2018 130 AllLR 591

[23]Murti Shivji Maharaj Birajman Asthal Mohalla Vs Mathura Das Chela Naval Das Bairagi: 2018 8 ADJ 843; 2018 130 AllLR 591

[24]    Prosunno Kumari Debya V. Golab Chand Baboo, (1875) L.R.2 I.A.145; Palaniappa Chetty Vs. Sreemath Devasikamony Pandarasannadhi: ILR 40 Mad709 (PC) 

[25] Quoted in Sridhar Suar Vs. Jagannath Temple: AIR1976 SC 1860.

[26]    Panna Banerjee Vs. Kali Kinkor Ganguli (AIR 1974 Cal 126). It relied on: Gnannsambanda Pandara Samadhi Vs. Velu Pandaram: (1900) 27 Ind App 69 (PC); Damodar Das Vs. Adhikari Lakhan (1910) 37 Ind App 147 (PC); Hemanta Kumari Bose Vs. Sree SreeIswar Sridhar Jew reported: AIR 1946 Cal 473. See also Bairagi Das Vs. Sri Uday Chandra Mahatab: AIR 1965  Ori 201; GovindaJiew Thakur Vs. Surendra Jena: AIR 1961 Ori  102 .

[27]    Gnaansambanda Vs. Velu: 23 Mad 271 (PC). Damodar Das Vs. Lakahan Das: ILR (1910) 37 Cal 885; Bisseshwar Dass Vs. SashinathJha: AIR 1943 Pat 289; Balmukund Vs. Kamalwati: AIR 1964 SC 1385; Jagat Narain Vs. Mathurada: (1928) ILR 50 All 969: Sital Prasad Vs. AjvelMander: (1939) ILR 18 Pat 306; Manikka Narasimhachari Vs. Ramasubbier: (1970) 1 MLJ 337; Gurbux Singh Vs. Bishan Dass: AIR 1970 Punj 182; Sree Siddhi Budhi Vinayakagar Sundareswarar  Vs. SV Marimuthu: AIR 1963 Mad 369. MurtiShivjiMaharajBirajmanAsthalMohallaVs Mathura Das Chela Naval Das Bairagi: 2018-8 ADJ 843; 2018-130 All LR 591

[28] AIR 1974  Cal 126. Appeal Judgment:  Kali Kinkor Ganguly  Vs. Panna Banerjee AIR 1974 SC 1932

[29] AIR 1974 SC 1932

[30] See: Raja Vurmah Vs. Ravi Vurmah: (1877) ILR 1 Mad 235: (1876-77) 4- Ind App 76(PC); Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Choron Requitte: AIR 1979 SC 1682; Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. LaxminathjiMaharaj: AIR 1985 All 228; JagatNarainVs. Mathura Das, AIR 1928 All 454 (FB).

[31]AIR 1969 Pat 394

[32]    Subbaya Vs. Mohammed: AIR 1923 PC 175

[33]    Appa Rao Vs. VignesamSubudhi: AIR 1937 Mad 118

[34]    Murugesan Vs. Manickavsaka: 40 Mad 402; Narasingha Swami Vs. P. Sahuani: AIR 1957 Ori 86

[35]    AIR 2005 Mad 129

[36]    AIR 1951 S.C. 214; Considered in: Sri Raghavendra Swami Mutt VS PanchapakesaIyer AIR 2005 Mad 129

[37]    AIR 1971 SC 1028; Considered in: Sri Raghavendra Swami Mutt Vs. PanchapakesaIyer AIR 2005 Mad 129

[38]    Ram CharanVs. Naurangi Lal: AIR 1933 PC 75.

[39]    Shridhar  Vs.  Jagannathji Temple, A I R 1976 S C 1860. Refered to in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan  Vs.  Laxminathji Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228.

[40]Quoted in Sridhar Suar Vs. Jagannath Temple: AIR 1976 SC 1860.

[41] 2018-14 SCC 761

[42]    AIR 1928 All 454 (FB). Referred to in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228.

[43]    AIR 1961 All 73. Referred to in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228.

[44]    AIR 1917 PC 33. Referred to in Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228.

[45]    Quoted with approval in Sridhar Vs. Sri Jagannath Temple, AIR 1976 SC 1860. Referred to in Bhagauti Prasad KhetanVs. Laxminathji Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228.

[46]    AIR 1981 SC 2128.

[47]    AIR 1922 Bom 122.

[48]    AIR 1960 Cal 741

[49] Quoted in: Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228

[50]    1980 Edition Vol. IV at page 346

[51]    Quoted in: Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228.

[52]    Page 892 (10^th Edition)

[53]    AIR 1990 SC 444

[54] 2018-14 SCC 761

---

---