Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Synopsis.

1. Introduction
2. Temple and Idol
3. Idolas representing spititual purpose is Juristic Person
4. Mutts a Juristic Person
5. Whether Shebaitship and Mahantship a Property?
6. School: Juristic Personality
7. Vesting of Tank
8. Vesting of Temple Property in Idol
9. ‘Ideal, Secondary, General or Figurative Sense’
10. Worshippers are Beneficiaries: in a Spiritual Sense
11. Deity, Legal Person ‘Representing Purpose of Dedicator’
12. Dedication for Spiritual Benefit
13. Deity and Idol
14. Shebait – Heritable Property
15. Can an Idol Sue as an Indigent Person
16. Shebait – Legal Status
17. Vesting Dedicated Property – Roman Law &Hindu Law
18. Valid Dedication
19. Family Deity is also a Juristic Person
20. Ownership Vests in Idol – Legal Principles
    • Res nullius
    • Re – Property Vests in Temple.
    • Re – Property Vests in Idol in a ‘figurative sense’
    • Property Vests in Idol Representing ‘Aim of Donor’.
21. Debutter/Devaswam Property
22. Devaswom – Legal Character

Introduction

Religious and Charitable Trusts exist in some shape or other, in almost all the civilized societies. Instincts of devoutness and compassion, inherent in human nature, made him found religious and charitable trusts.

Roman law

• In Roman law, properties dedicated to Gods formed a species of Res Publicae. The only juristic person recognized in early Roman Law was the State.
• The idea of a corporate body as a new subject to rights and duties distinct from all its members was fully recognized in Rome during the Imperial period.

English Law

• In English Law there is something technical in the conception of trust which had its origin in dual system of law and dual system of ownership.
• The notions of trust in its technical sense were devised by the Chancery Courts in England. These principles were imported to a large extent form the Roman Civil Law.[1]

Hindu Law

• Hindu Law also has its own unique history of development as to the concepts of legal identity of its religious and charitable endowments, and rules fastened thereto. It marks differences from the English principles.
• The norms and doctrines that exist in the Hindu religion of modern times were not devised in the religion of the Vedas.
• The law which is administered today in India with respect to the endowed Hindu temples and religious institutions is, to a large extent, the creation of Judges.

Ever since the establishment of British Courts in India, an array of eminent Judges, both English and Indian, brought their legal learning and strong common sense to bear upon this branch of law.  They evolved a sufficiently well-developed body of rules and principles. They based on the few cryptic writings of ancient Hindu sages. This development was, in a sense, necessitated by the demands of the time and the prevalent social and moral ideas. The notions and principles of English Law had also influenced it to a great extent.[2]

Temples were Common Hindu Endowments

It was observed by the Madras High Court, in Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami Vs. Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami (1904),[3] that temples were numerous in India and they had the largest endowments, especially in the shape of lands, revenue and jewellery.

Hindu Law on Dedication

A religious trust by way of debutter comes into existence only on dedication of property for worship or service of Idol. For a valid dedication there should be proof of renunciation of the ownership of (dedicated) property, by the owner.[4] In case of a dispute as to dedication, the court decides the same on the basis of its particular facts and circumstances.[5] The ceremonies of Sankalpa and Samarpana are relevant to show the intention of the owner. If there is clear evidence of divesting of ownership with the intention of devoting it to religious or charitable purpose, dedication can be inferred even without specific evidence of ceremonies.[6]

In Deoki  Nandan Vs. Murlidhar[7] it is observed:

• “It is a settled law that an endowment can validly be created in favour of an idol or temple without the performance of any particular ceremonies, provided the settlor has clearly and unambiguously expressed his intention in that behalf. Where it is proved that ceremonies were performed, that would be valuable evidence of endowment, but, absence of such proof would not be conclusive against it.” 

In Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi Vs. D Subba Rao[8] it is held:

• “The principles of Hindu Law applicable to the consideration of questions of dedication of property to charity are well settled. Dedication to charity need not necessarily be by instrument or grant. It can be established by cogent and satisfactory evidence of conduct of the parties and use of the property which shows the extinction of the private secular character of the property and its complete dedication to charity.”

In Kuldip Chand Vs. Advocate General to Government of H P[9] while dealing with a Dharmasala, it is held:

• “Dedication of property either may be complete or partial. When such dedication is complete, a public trust is created in contradistinction to a partial dedication which would only create a charity…… A dedication for public purposes and for the benefit of the general public would involve complete cessation of ownership on the part of the founder and vesting of the property for the religious object…. A dedication, it may bear repetition to state, would mean complete relinquishment of his right of ownership and proprietary.”

It is pointed out by Dr. BK Mukherjea, J., on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, Tagore Law Lectures, that ‘it is undoubtedly possible for a founder to dedicate property in the form of a gift; he can also, if he likes, create a trust through the medium of trustees’;[10]and that under Hindu law, if an endowment is made for a religious or charitable institution, without the instrumentality of a trust, and the object of the endowment is one which is recognised as pious, being either religious or charitable under the accepted notions of Hindu law, the institution will be treated as a juristic person capable of holding property.[11]

Mulla, Hindu Law: reads as under:

• “A Hindu who wishes to establish a religious or charitable institution, may, according to his law, express his purpose and endow it. A trust is not required for that purpose. … “[12]

Dr. BK Mukherjea, J. on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts[13] observes that a dedication by a Hindu for religious or charitable purposes is neither a ‘gift’ nor a ‘trust’ in the strict legal sense.

Peculiarities of ‘Hindu Dedications’

In Murti Shivji Maharaj Birajman Asthal Mohalla Vs. Mathura Das Chela Naval Das Bairagi^[14] AP High Court listed following peculiarities of ‘Hindu dedications’:

•        “(1) A dedication to the religious or a charitable trust under Hindu law is not a gift or a transfer of property.
•        (2) A dedication does not require writing or registration. No formal words or ceremonies are necessary to effect a dedication.
•        (3) A dedication does not require acceptance on behalf of the idol or charity.
•        (4) A dedication will not fail even though there is uncertainty in the name of the idol or uncertainty in the quantum of income that has to be applied to the trust.
•        (5) A dedication will not fail even if a gift is made to an idol which is not in existence at the time of the testator’s death (Mohan Singh v. Hat Singh, 32 All 337), nor a dedication to a temple which is yet to be built to a deity.
•        (6) A dedication will not fall even if there is destruction or a mutilation of the image of the deity (Raghavachari v. Narayan, AIR 1974 Mad 166). A dedication is not affected by the Rule against Perpetuities and Accumulations.
•        (7) A dedication is irrevocable even at the instance of the donor (Deoki Nandan Vs. Mulidhar, AIR 1957 SC 133).
•        (8) The dedication of property is not a sacrament but a secular act. The only difference between a dedication and secular gift is that in former no acceptance is necessary; mere renunciation of ownership by the donor with a particular object being sufficient to create an endowment (Ram Swaroop v. Thakur Ram Chandra, AIR 1953 Nag 35).
•        (9) Declaration in unequivocal term is sufficient. Where a tablet was fixed declaring that house was set apart for using as staying place for marriage parties of Khattries, it was held as sufficient to constitute the dedication (Jay Dayal v. Diwan, ILR 1938 Lah 704).
•        (10) The rule against perpetuities embodied Section 14 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable to properties dedicated for public religious and charitable purposes.”

Dedication to the Almighty

A Full Bench of Madras High Court, in Narasimha Vs. Venkatalingam,[15] held that a gift to Almighty is not a gift to a living person; and therefore, it is neither a gift nor a conveyance under the Transfer of Property Act.[16]Dedication of property to a deity is actually renunciation of its ownership by a private individual, in favour of the Almighty.

Purpose of Gift to a Religious Endowment

In Hindu Religious Endowments Board Vs. Veeraraghavacharlu (1937)[17] it had been observed:

• “As explained in the case, that purpose of making a gift to a temple is not to confer a benefit on God but to confer a benefit on those who worship in that temple, by making it possible for them to have the worship conducted in a proper and impressive manner. This is the sense in which a temple and its endowments are regarded as a public trust.”[18]

Our Apex Court, in Deoki  Nandan  Vs  Murlidhar,[19] it was held as under:

• “The true purpose of a gift of properties to the Idol is not to confer any benefit on God, but to acquire spiritual benefit by providing opportunities and facilities for those who desire to worship.”[20]

Trust: Hindu Law & English Law

Main characteristics of charitable trusts under Hindu Law that bear stark difference from the English Law are the following:

• (i)   Under Hindu Law, charitable trusts of private nature are also accepted as valid. Dr. Mukherjea in his Tagore Law Lectures ‘On the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts’ depicted this feature 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. … 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.”[21]
• (ii) Under Hindu Law, especially in the case of temples and Mutts, property can vest in the deity or in the institution, considered as juristic persons;[22]whereas, in English Law, a trustee is the legal owner of the trust property. Dr. Mukherjea, ‘On Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts’ spoke:
  • “The idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognised by law and in this juristic person the dedicated property vests.”
• Our Apex Court in Sarangadeva  Periya  Matam  Vs. Ramaswami  Goundar[23] held that the Mutt was the owner of the endowed property; and that, like an idol, the Mutt is a juristic person  having the power of acquiring, owning and possessing property and having the capacity of suing and being sued.
• (iii) Under Hindu Law, Shebaites are only persons in charge of administration of the temple and its property; and they are not recognized, in the strict legal sense, as trustees, for the main reason that the property does not vest in them.  They are only Managers. Deeming provision was inserted in Sec. 10 of the (old) Limitation Act to bring-in such managers also under this section.[24]
• (iv) Under Hindu Law, beneficiaries have only beneficial interest; and, not beneficial ownership. Under English law, legal ownership is vested in Trustees and beneficial ownership, in Beneficiaries.
• (v) Under Hindu Law, the administrators of religious trusts in India have no title to the trust properties; and the properties are vested in them for administration and management alone.[25]
• (vi) Under Hindu Law, the beneficiaries have an interest in trust property, as distinct from a right against the trustee, as recognized by the Privy Council in ME Moolla Sons Ltd Vs. Official Assignee, Rangoon.[26]

In Vidya  Varuthi  Thirtha  Swamigal Vs.  Baluswami  Ayyar (1922)[27] the Privy Council held as under:

• “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. When the gift is directly to an idol or a temple, the seisin to complete the gift is necessarily effected by human agency. Called by whatever name, the agent is only the manager and custodian of the idol or the institution. In no case is the property conveyed to or vested in him; nor is he a ‘trustee’ in the English sense of the term although in view of the obligations and duties resting on him, is answerable as a trustee in the general sense for maladministration. ” 

In Mt. Allah Rakhi Vs.  Shah Mohammed Abdur Rahim[28] it was held by the Privy Council as under:

• “Mutawalli or Sajjadanashin is merely a manager of the wakf property, the ownership of which vests in God Almighty. Mutawalli or Sajjadanashin is not a trustee as understood in the English system.”

In Hem Chandra Vs. Suradham  Debya[29] it was held by the Privy Council that the beneficial interest, though not technically an equitable estate in India, could be mortgaged by the beneficiary.

Are Shebait, Mahant, Mutawalli etc. Trustees in ‘True Sense’?

It is trite law that dedicated property of a temple will be vested with the idol as the legal owner thereof, though such vesting is qualified to be in an ‘ideal or secondary sense’ (Bhupathi Nath v. Ramlal Maitra: ILR 37 Cal. 128) and the possession and management thereof will be with some human being identified as Shebait or Manager, though in the strict legal sense, they cannot be accepted as trustees.

In Wali Mohammed v. Rahmat Bee, (1999- 3 SCC 145), to the question whether the Mutawalli of a Wakf would be a trustee, our Apex Court observed as under:

• “35. It will be seen that the main part of Sec. 10 (Limitation Act) states that no period of limitation applies for recovery of property from a trustee in whom the property is vested for a specific purpose, unless such a person is an assignee for valuable consideration. The Explanation further states that it shall be deemed that a person managing the property of a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment is to be deemed to be a trustee in whom such property has vested for a specific purpose. We shall explain these provisions in some detail.
• 36. In Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal v. Baluswami Ayyar [AIR 1922 PC 123 : ILR 44 Mad 831] the Privy Council held that property comprised in a Hindu or Mohammedan religious or charitable endowment was not property vested in trust for a specific purpose within the meaning of the said words in the main section. The reason was that according to the customary law, where property was dedicated to a Hindu idol or mutt or to a Mohammedan wakf, the property vested in the idol or the institution or God, as the case may be, directly and that the shebait, mahant, mutawalli or other person who was in charge of the institution was simply a manager on behalf of the institution. As Sec. 10 did not apply unless these persons were trustees this judgment made recovery of properties of the above trusts from donees, from these managers, rather difficult.
• 37. The legislature therefore intervened and amended Sec. 10 for the purpose of getting over the effect of the above judgment. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Bill of 1929 makes this clear. It says: “The (Civil Justice) Committee’s recommendation refers, it is understood, to the decisions of the Privy Council in Vidya Varuthi v. Baluswami [AIR 1922 PC 123 : ILR 44 Mad 831] and Abdur Rahim v. Narayan Das Aurora [(1922) 50 IA 84] which lay down that a dharmakarta, mahant or manager of a Hindu religious property or the mutawalli or sajjadanashin in whom the management of Mohammedan religious endowment is vested, are not trustees within the meaning of the words as used in Sec. 10 of the Limitation Act, for the reason that the property does not vest in them. The result is that when a suit is brought against a person, not being an assignee for valuable consideration, endowments of this nature are not protected. The Committee’s recommendation is that Sec. 10 of the Limitation Act should be amended so as to put Hindu and Mohammedan religious endowments on the same footing as other trust funds which definitely vest in a trustee.” (Quoted in: Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs v. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla, 2022-12 SCR 482).

In Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs v. Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla, 2022-12 SCR 482, the Apex Court held that the Mutawalli is not a trustee in its true sense. The Supreme Court formulated a crucial question and answered it as under:

• “127. Thus, the Mutawalli is treated as a trustee. But would the amendment made to Sec. 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963 make a Mutawalli a trustee generally?
• Our answer is an emphatic No. This is for the reason that the change in Sec. 10 of the Limitation Act was effected to overcome the judgment of the Privy Council, when it held that a Mutawalli would not be a trustee and when in view of the requirement in Sec. 10 that the suit must be one against a person in whom the property has become vested in trust for any specific purpose and as a Mutawalli would not be a trustee in law per se, the legislature brought in the explanation. But what is striking are two features. Firstly, the change is brought by way of an Explanation. More importantly, the explanation begins with words “For the purpose of this section  and proceeds to declare that “any property comprised in a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment shall be deemed to be properly vested in trust for a specific purpose and the manager of the property shall be deemed to be the trustee thereof.”
• Therefore, apart from it being an Explanation, it also on its very terms, limits the deeming fiction to the purpose sought to be attained in Sec. 10 of the Limitation Act.”

Trust Not Required for Endowing Hindu Religious Institutions

A Hindu can establish a religious or charitable institution even without creating a trust; i.e., one can endow an institution without appointing trustees. Such a dedication will not be recognised under English Law.

Mulla, Hindu Law[30] reads:

• “A Hindu who wishes to establish a religious or charitable institution may, according to his law, express his purpose and endow it. A trust is not required for that purpose. All that is necessary is that the religious or charitable purposes should be clearly specified, and that the property intended for the endowment should be set apart for or dedicated to those purposes….”

Dr. B.K. Mukherjea ‘‘On the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts’’, Tagore Law Lectures, page 158, explains as to debutter property as under:

• “The mere fact that an idol has been established does not by itself create a debutter. A religious trust by way of debutter can come into existence only when property is dedicated for worship or service of the idol. When there is no endowment in favour of an established idol, no trust in the Legal Sense of the term can possibly come into being; it is only the moral duty of the person who founds the deity or his heirs to carry on the worship in such a way as they think proper.”

Debutter/Devaswam Property

Though the dedicated asset of a temple is described as ‘Property of the Gods’ or ‘Devaswom’, according to the texts, the Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of the property and they can be described as their owners only in a figurative[31] sense.

Our Apex Court, in Ram Jankijee Deities Vs. State of Bihar,[32]observed as under: 

• “In the conception of Debutter, two essential ideas are required to be performed: In the first place, the property which is dedicated to the Deity vests in an ideal sense in the Deity itself as a Juristic Person and in the second place, the personality of the Idol being linked up with natural personality of the Shebait, being the manager or being the Dharamkarta and who is entrusted with the custody of the Idol and who is responsible otherwise for preservation of the property of the Idol.”

Medhathiti commented on the expression ‘Devaswam’ in Manu, Chapter XI, Verse 26 as under:[33]

• “Property of the Gods, Devaswam, means whatever is abandoned for Gods, for purposes of sacrifice and the like, because ownership in the primary sense, as showing the relationship between the owner and the property owned, is impossible of application to Gods.”[34]

Hindu Temples and Principles of Trust

Two conditions are to be satisfied for considering a religious institution as a Hindu Temple: One, it should be a place of public religious worship; and the other is that it should have been dedicated for the benefit of, or is used as of right by the Hindu Community, or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship. Placing these principles, our Apex Court held, in PF Sadavarthy Vs.  Commissioner, HR and CE,[35] as under:

• “To constitute a temple it is enough if it is a place of public religious worship and if the people believe in its religious efficacy irrespective of the fact whether there is an Idol or a structure or other paraphernalia. It is enough if the devotees or the pilgrims feel that there is some super human power which they should worship and invoke its blessings.”[36]

In Hindu Religious Endowments Board Vs. Veeraraghavacharlu[37] it was observed by the Madras High Court as under:

• “As explained in the case, that purpose of making a gift to a temple is not to confer a benefit on God but to confer a benefit on those who worship in that temple, by making it possible for them to have the worship conducted in a proper and impressive manner. This is the sense in which a temple and its endowments are regarded as a public trust.”[38]

Worshippers are the Beneficiaries of Temples

Temples are established for the spiritual benefit of the Hindu community in general, or for a particular sect or section thereof. The beneficiary thereof is not God or deity; but, it is the worshippers as a whole.  Worshippers of an Idol are its ultimate beneficiaries, in a ‘spiritual sense’ only.[39]

The Supreme Court in the celebrated decision Deoki  NandanVs. Murlidhar,[40] after considering various decisions and Sanskrit texts, upheld the view that a Deity is an owner in ideal sense[41] and the real beneficiaries are the worshippers.[42]

Idol is a is a ‘Juristic Person’

In Prosunno Kumar Debia Vs. Golapchand (1874-75)[43] the Judicial Committee observed that it was only in an ideal sense that property could be said to belong to an idol. It had been expressly laid down in Manohar Ganesh Vs. Lakhmiram (1887)[44] that the consecrated idol in a Hindu temple was a juridical person. In Vidyapurna  Tirtha Swami Vs.  Vidyanidhi  Tirtha Swami (1904)[45] it was observed as under:

• “It is not strange, therefore, that in a country like this, where the sacredbooks of the people abound in personified descriptions of the Deity, His powers and attributes, the belief of donors should be similar and even stronger, as will be seen from Doorga Prasad v. Shiva Prasad, 7 CLR 278, where Mac Donnel and Tottenham JJ. observed: ‘According to Hindu notions when an idol has once been so to speak consecrated by the appropriate ceremony being performed and mantra pronounced, the deity of which the idol is the visible symbol resides in it.’
• It is to give due effect to such a sentiment, widespread and deep rooted as it has always been, with reference to something not capable of holding property as a natural person, that the laws of most countries have sanctioned the creation of a fictitious person in the matter, as is implied in the felicitous observation made in the work already cited: ‘Perhaps the oldest of all juristic persons is the God, hero or the saint.’ (Pollock and Maitlands: History of English Law, p. 481).”

Pollock and Maitlands: ‘History of the English Law’ had been quoted in this decision (Vidyapurna  Tirtha Swami).  It reads:

•  “His worshippers who gave him lands and goods regarded him, if in one sense as a supernatural person, yet in another and a very real sense, as a natural person; he was no creature of human thought, he lived and could hold property”.

Following are the important decisions of the Supreme Court that explained the principles as to ‘juristic personality’ of Idols.

• Bishwanath Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabhji (1967)[46]
• Yogendra Nath Naskar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1969)[47]
• Official Trustee of WB Vs. CIT, WB, Calcutta (1974)[48]
• Profulla  Chorone  Requitte Vs. Satya  Choron  Requitte (1979)[49]
• Ram Jankijee Deities Vs. State of Bihar (1999)[50]
• Parbandhak Committee Vs. Som Nath Dass (2000)[51]
• Sri Ganapathi Dev Temple Vs. Balakrishna Bhat Shir. Gurdwara (2019)
• M Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case) (2019).[52]

Property Vests in Deity or Institution; Not in Trustees

As shown above, one of the main differences with respect to charitable trusts, between English Law and Hindu Law (temples, Mutts, schools, tank etc.) is that under Hindu Law, property vests in the Idol or Deity[53] or in the institution; whereas under English Law trust-property vests in trustees.

Our Apex Court in Sarangadeva  Periya  Matam  Vs.  Ramaswami  Goundar[54] held that the Mutt was the owner of the endowed property; and that, like an Idol, the Mutt is a juristic person  having the power of acquiring, owning and possessing property and having the capacity of suing and being sued.

Vesting Property with Idol, in an Ideal Sense; Management remains with Shebait

The possession and management of the dedicated property of a temple, which is vested with the idol, has to be in actual possession of some human-being. It is Shebait (शेबैत ). The responsibilities undertaken by Shebaits, in different parts of India, are similar. But, those persons are identified by different names.

• Shebait (Shebaite) is the name used in Bengal & North India.
• It is Dharmakarthas in Tamil and Telungu area.
• And, Uralens/Ooralans in Kerala.

The Shebait being entitled to deal with all the temporal affairs of the idol and to manage its property,[55] the vesting of property with the Idol, as legal owner thereof, is qualified to be:

• (a) in an ideal sense (Jogadinadra  Nath  Vs.  Hemanta  Kumari Debi),^[56]
• (b) secondary/general character (Bhupathi  Nath Vs. Ramlal Maitra)^[57] or
• (c) in a figurative sense (Yogendranath  Vs. IT Commr)^[58].

Because of the fiduciary position, their liability equates that of trustees. With regard to status of Shebaits, Indian Law differ from that of trustees in English Law, on details.

Under true English concept of trust, a trustee is the legal owner of the trust property; and the beneficial ownership thereof vests in the beneficiary or the cestuique trust.  Though Shebaits have certain limited proprietary rights, as shown below, they are only managers or persons in charge of administration of the temple and its property; and, the property do not vest in them as the legal-owners as in English Law.

Dr. BK Mukherjea on The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts,[59] reads as under:

• “(1) According to these sages the deity or idol is the owner of the dedicated property but in a secondary sense. The ownership in its primary sense connotes the capacity to enjoy and deal with the property at one’s pleasure. A deity cannot hold or enjoy property like a man; hence the deity is not the owner in its primary sense; (2) ownership is, however, attributed to the deity in a secondary or ideal sense; this is a fiction but not a mere figure of speech, it is a legal fact; otherwise the deity could not be described as owner even in the secondary sense; (3) the fictitious ownership which is imputed to the deity is determined by the expressed intentions of the founder; the debutter property cannot be applied or used for any purpose other than that indicated by the founder. The deity as owner, therefore, represents nothing else but the intentions of the founder….. Neither God nor any supernatural being could be a person in law. So far as the deity stands as the representative and symbol of the particular purpose which is indicated by the donor, it can figure as a legal person and the correct view is that in that capacity alone the dedicated property vests in it.”[60]

The Supreme Court, in Deoki  Nandan  Vs. Murlidhar (1957),[61] after considering various decisions and Sanskrit texts, observed as under:

• “Thus, according to the texts, the Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of the properties, and they can be described as their owners only in a figurative sense (Gaunartha),[62] and the true purpose of a gift of properties to the Idol is not to confer any benefit on God, but to acquire spiritual benefit by providing opportunities and facilities for those who desire to worship.”[63]

It is expressed in another way by the Apex Court in Yogendranath  Vs. IT Commissioner[64] as under:

• “The juristic person in the idol is not the material image, and it is an exploded theory that the image itself develops into a legal person as soon as it is consecrated. … It is also not correct that the Supreme Being of which the idol is a symbol or image is the recipient and owner of dedicated property. … Thus according to texts, the Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of properties, and they can be described as their owners in a figurative sense (though the assets are called ‘properties of the Gods’ or ‘Devaswam’)”.

Our Apex Court followed the proposition that the property vests in idol in an ideal sense only, in the following decisions.

• Bishwanath Vs. Thakur Radha Ballabhji (1967)[65]
• Yogendra Nath Naskar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1969)[66]
• Profulla  Chorone  Requitte Vs. Satya  Choron  Requitte (1979)[67]
• Ram Jankijee Deities Vs. State of Bihar (1999)[68]
• M Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case) (2019).[69]

Juristic personality of Idol Explained

It is held by the Supreme Court in M Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case) [70] as under:

• “322. Courts recognise a Hindu idol as the material embodiment of a testator’s pious purpose. Juristic personality can also be conferred on a Swayambhu deity which is a self-manifestation in nature. An idol is a juristic person in which title to the endowed property vests. The idol does not enjoy possession of the property in the same manner as do natural persons. The property vests in the idol only in an ideal sense. The idol must act through some human agency which will manage its properties, arrange for the performance of ceremonies associated with worship and take steps to protect the endowment, inter alia by bringing proceedings on behalf of the idol. The shebait is the human person who discharges this role.”

Status of Shebaits and Mahanths – Concept and History of Origin, Unique

Mahant is the head and superior of the spiritual fraternity attached to a Mutt. The concept of Shebaiti and Mahanthship is deep-rooted in past Indian history, and has its own unique history of origin and development. When compared to ‘trustees’ in Law of Trusts, the status and position of Shebaits and Mahanths may appear anomalous.

• Because,
  1. Viewing through the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, they are not trustees.
  2. Despite the fact that property will not vest in them and they are mere managers or administrators, in one view of the matters, they have certain proprietary rights.
  3. In the conception of Shebaiti and Mahanthship, both the elements of office and property are mixed up; and duties and personal interest are blended together.
  4. The legal character of a Shebait cannot be defined with precision and exactitude in the English standards, though the concept of Shebaiti and Mahanthshipit is precise, and bounded by definite contours.

In Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Chorone Requitte (1979) it was observed by our Apex Court that the legal character of a Shebait cannot be defined with precision and exactitude.

See Blog: Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees

Management Entrusted to Shebaites,  Ex Necessitas

In Profulla Chorone Requitte Vs. Satya Chorone Requitte (1979)[71] it was observed by our Apex Court that the property dedicated to an idolvests in it in an ideal sense only;the possession and management has to be (ex necessitas) entrusted to some human agent. The legal character of a shebait cannot be defined with precision and exactitude. Broadly described, he is the human ministrant and custodian of the idol, its earthly spokesman, its authorised representative entitled to deal with all its temporal affairs and to manage its property.

Property Vests in Idol ‘as representing the aim or purpose of donor’

Ownership property dedicated to temple/Idol vests in Idol/Deity itself. Legally accepted theory as to vesting is that such vesting is ‘as representing the aim or purpose of donor’ or the purpose of the trust.

Legal Personality: ‘Entity of the Idol’ Linked with‘Pious Purpose’: Dedicated property of a temple is generally said to be vested with Idol, as legal owner thereof; and not with any human being. But, neither God nor any supernatural being could be a person in law.[72] It is held to be an exploded theory that the idol or image itself develops into a legal person as soon as it is consecrated.[73]

In this situation, to give a logical proposition as to the ‘juristic personality’ of idol, the ‘entity of the idol’ has to be linked or merged with the ‘pious purpose’ of the donor; especially since such ‘purpose’ itself is recognised in law as a legal person, as pointed out as early as in Manohar Ganesh Tambekar Vs. Lakhmiram (1888).[74]

Other Potential Theories as to Property Dedicated to Temples

Other potential theories discussed in legal parlance are the following:

• 1. Dedicated property becomes Res nullius – belongs to nobody.
• 2. Ownership vests in Temple.
• 3. Ownership vests in Idol/Deity as representing God/Creator.
• 4. Ownership vests in the Hindu Community at large or the section thereof.

1.Res nullius

This proposition is liable to be discarded for its inherent illegitimacy. It is noteworthy that Dr. BK Mukherjea, J. did not support the doctrine of ‘res nullius’; Dr. Mukherjea opined that ownership ‘must vest in somebody.’[75]

2. Re – Property Vests in Temple.

The Deity/Idol being invariably present in a Temple and it forms central part (or ‘nucleus’[76]) of the foundation and it stands as the material symbol and embodiment of the pious purpose which the dedicator had in view[77], the law prefers recognition of the Deity as the legal person;[78] and disfavours recognition of Temple (or Endowment/Devaswam) as a legal person.[79]

3. Re – Property Vests in Idol in a ‘figurative sense’and  as Representing God/ Supreme-Being/ Creator.

Idol is regarded as the image or embodiment of Deity, which ultimately represents the Supreme Being. Idol or Image may be broken or lost; it can be replaced or substituted.  But Deity remains as same. In spiritual and legal concepts the ‘Deity’ is a representative. (‘Idol’ and ‘deity’ are seen used as synonyms when legal principles are formulated.)

Actually, when a devotee worships at the temple, he offers his prayers, or glorifies the Eternal Spirit attributed, to the Idol (and not the visible material of Idol, as it is).  This is the reason for regarding the Idol as Deity (one of the Gods). This principle could not be discarded while a theory as to true vesting of property is evolved.

It was observed by Privy Council in Bhupathi  Nath Vs. Ramlal  Maitra[80] that the concept that the Deity could be a ‘person’ was not accepted under Hindu- philosophy for the following:

•  “It is a contradiction in terms to talk of the Creator accepting anything, in the legal sense of the word, from a creature, and that it is inconceivable that laws which were made for, if not by, men should be applicable to a Deity.”

4. Ownership vests in the Hindu Community at large

The ownership of the property vests, ideally speaking, in the idol or the deity; and in a practical sense in the Hindu community at large or the section, as the case may be, for whose worship the institution has been founded.[81]

Dr. BK Mukherjea on The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts

It is explained by Dr. BK Mukherjea, J. that the Idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognised by law.  Dr. Mukherjea, J  explained:

• “Neither God nor any supernatural being could be a person in law. So far as the deity stands as the representative and symbol of the particular purpose which is indicated by the donor, it can figure as a legal person and the correct view is that in that capacity alone the dedicated property vests in it.”

Dr. BK Mukherjea evaluated the decisions of the Privy Council as well as the Courts of India and points out as under:

• “With regard to Debutter, the position seems to be somewhat different. What is personified here is not the entire property which is dedicated to the deity but the deity itself which is the central part of the foundation and stands as the material symbol and embodiment of the pious purpose which the dedicator has in view.
• “The dedication to deity”, said Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Bhupati v. Ramlal Maitra, (1910) 10 Cal LJ 355 at p. 369 “is nothing but a compendious expression of the pious purpose for which the dedication is designed”.
• It is not only a compendious expression but a material embodiment of the pious purposeand though there is difficulty in holding that property can reside in the aim or purpose itself, it would be quite consistent with sound principles of Jurisprudence to say that a material object which represents or symbolises a particular purpose can be given the status of a legal person, and regarded as owner of the property which is dedicated to it”[82]

Dr. BK Mukherjea J., reads further as under:[83]

• “Principle as to personality of institutions.- Apart from natural persons and corporations, which are recognised by English Law, the position under Hindu Law is that if an endowment is made for a religious or charitable institution, without the instrumentality of a trust, and the object of the endowment is one which is recognised as pious, being either religious or charitable under the accepted notions of Hindu Law, the institution will be treated as a juristic person capable of holding property….
• The position as to Idols is of a special nature. In the Hindu Debutter, it seems, the position is slightly different, and not the whole endowment, but the Idol which as an embodiment of a pious or benevolent idea, constitutes the centre of the foundation and is looked upon as the juristic being in which the Debutter property vests. After all, juristic personality is a mere creation of law and has its origins in a desire for doing justice by providing, as it were, centres for jural relations. As Salmond says: ‘It may be of as many kinds as the law considers proper,’ and the choice of the corpus into which the law shall breathe the breath of fictious personality is a matter of form than of substance.”[84]

Expansion of Concept as to Vesting Property in ‘Pious Purpose’

Prosunno Kumari Debya Vs. Golab Chand Baboo: 1875

Onward march of jurisprudential ideas as to vesting of property dedicated to an Idol, begins from the decision of the Privy Council in 1875, in Prosunno Kumari Debya Vs. Golab Chand Baboo.[85]It was held in this decision that the property vest in the deity only in an ‘ideal sense’.  The ever growing ideas in this subject are bloated out from this pile.

• “It is only in an ideal sense that property can be said to belong to an Idol; and the possession and management of it must in the nature of things be entrusted to some person as shebait, or manager. It would seem to follow that the person so entrusted must of necessity be empowered to do whatever may be required for the service of the  Idol, and for the benefit and preservation of its property, at least to as great a degree as the manager of an infant heir. If this were not so, the estate of the Idol might be destroyed or wasted, and its worship discontinued, for want of the necessary funds to preserve and maintain them.”

Manohar  Ganesh  Tambekar  Vs.  Lakhmiram: 1888

Bombay High Court, in 1887, in Manohar Ganesh Tambekar Vs.Lakhmiram,[86] set out the underlying principles for conferring legal personality on an Idol and the doctrine as to the pious purpose of the testator as the legal entity capable of holding property. Justice West observed as under:

• “The Hindu Law, like the Roman law and those derived from it recognizes not only corporate bodies with rights of property vested in the corporation apart from its individual members, but also juridical persons or subjects called foundations. The religious institutions like Mutts and other establishments obviously answer to the description of foundations in Roman Law. The idea is the same, namely, when property is dedicated for a particular purpose, the property itself upon which the purpose is impressed, is raised to the category of a juristic person so that the property which is dedicated would vest in the person so created.”[87]

Vidyapurna  Tirtha Swami Vs. Vidyanidhi  Tirtha   Swami: 1904

Madras High Court in Vidyapurna  Tirtha Swami Vs. Vidyanidhi  Tirtha Swami[88] observed in the year 1904 as under:

• “For all practical purposes however it is immaterial whether the presiding Idol or the community of worshippers is regarded as the corporation or juristic person in which the properties are vested, though from a juristic point of view there may be a difference of opinion as to which theory is more scientific. In the words of a recent writer on Jurisprudence (Salmond‘s ‘Jurisprudence’ (1902), 346) ‘the choice of the corpus into which the law shall breathe the breath of a fictious personality is a matter of form rather than of substance, of lucid and compendious expression, rather than of legal principle’ …”[89]

Bhupathi  Nath  Vs. Ramlal  Maitra:  1909-1910

Privy Council in Bhupathi  Nath  Vs. Ramlal  Maitra[90] held that, in law, neither God nor any supernatural being could be a person; but, the Deity ‘as representing Supreme Being’ or ‘as representing the pious purpose of the dedicator’ could be accepted as a legal person. It was pointed out that the concept that the Deity could be a ‘person’ was not accepted under Hindu-philosophy, observing as under:

•  “It is a contradiction in terms to talk of the Creator accepting anything, in the legal sense of the word, from a creature, and that it is inconceivable that laws which were made for, if not by, men should be applicable to a Deity”

Deoki  Nandan  Vs. Murlidhar: 1957

The Supreme Court in the celebrated decision Deoki  NandanVs. Murlidhar,[91] after considering various decisions and Sanskrit texts upheld the view that a Deity is an owner in ideal sense and the real beneficiaries are the worshippers.[92] It was observed that the true purpose of a gift of properties to the Idol is not to confer any benefit on God, but to acquire spiritual benefit by providing opportunities and facilities for those who desire to worship. In Deoki  Nandan  Vs  Murlidharit was held as under:

“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 any specified portion thereof.”

Yogendra  Nath  Vs. IT Commissioner: 1969

The Supreme Court held in Yogendra  Nath Vs. IT Commissioner,[93]  that the Idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor was the juristic person recognized by law; and ‘that in this juristic person the dedicated property vests’.[94] It was further observed in this decision that ‘neither God nor any supernatural being could be a person in law. Then held:

• “But, so far as the deity stands as the representative and symbol of the particular purpose which is indicated by the donor, it can figure as a legal person.”

The Supreme Court in Yogendra Nath Naskar Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta, AIR 1969 SC 1089, observed as under:

• “6. …It should however be remembered that the juristic person in the idol is not the material image, and it is an exploded theory that the image itself develops into a legal person as soon as it is consecrated and vivified by the Pran Pratishta ceremony. It is not also correct that the Supreme Being of which the idol is a symbol or image is the recipient and owner of the dedicated property.
• …The correct legal position is that the idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognised by law and in this juristic person the dedicated property vests. As observed by Mr. Justice B.K. Mukherjea:
  • “With regard to the debutter… It is not only a compendious expression but a material embodiment of the pious purpose and though there is difficulty in holding that property can reside in the aim or purpose itself, it would be quite consistent with sound principles of Jurisprudence to say that a material object which represents or symbolises a particular purpose can be given the status of a legal person, and regarded as owner of the property which is dedicated to it. … The legal position is comparable in many respects to the development in Roman Law.”
• (It is quoted in M Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case), 2019)

The Supreme Court, after referring to various texts, explained that that the juristic person in the Idol was not the material image, and it was an exploded theory that the image itself developed into a legal person as soon as it was consecrated. According to the texts, Gods had no beneficial enjoyment of the properties, and they could be described as their owners only in a figurative sense[95] (Gannartha), though the assets were called ‘property of the Gods’ or ‘Devaswam’. It was pointed out that the true purpose of a gift of properties to the Idol was not to confer any benefit on God, but to acquire spiritual benefit by providing opportunities and facilities for those who desired to worship.

Ram Jankijee Deities Vs. State of Bihar: 1999

Our Apex Court, in Ram Jankijee Deities Vs. State of Bihar,[96] while considering the legal status of two separate deities, Ram Jankijee and Thakur Raja, it was held that they were separate Juristic Persons. So, in the same precincts, as a matter of law, it is possible to exist two separate juristic persons. The Apex Court also observed as under: 

• “God is omnipotent and omniscient and its presence is felt not by reason of a particular form or image but by reason of the presence of the omnipotent: It is formless, it is shapeless and it is for the benefit of the worshippers that there is manifestation in images of the Supreme Being.”

It is observed further:

•  “A simple piece of wood or stone may become the image or idol and divinity is attributed to the same. As noticed above, it is formless, shapeless but it is the human concept of a particular divine existence which gives it the shape, the size and the colour.”

---

Read Blogs:Common Law of TRUSTS in India

• General Principles
  • What is Trust in Law?
  • Classification of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts in India.
  • Trust is ‘An Obligation’; Not a Legal Entity
  • Indian Law Does Not Accept Salmond, as to Dual Ownership
• Dedication and Vesting
  • Dedication of Property in Public Trusts
  • Vesting of Property in Trusts
  • Incidents of Trust in Clubs and Societies
• Trustees and Management
  • Trustees and Administration of Public Trusts
  • Alienation of Public Trust Property
  • Extinction, Discharge, Revocation, etc. of Public Trusts
• Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
• Suits by or against Trusts
  • Suits By or Against Trusts and Trustees
  • Remedies Under Sec. 92 CPC
• Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
  • Philosophy of Idol Worship
  • Is an Idol a Perpetual Minor?
  • Hindu Temples & Law of Trusts
  • Public & Private Trusts
  • Law of Mutts and Other Hindu Endowments
  • Shebaits & Mahants and Law of Trustees
• Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
  • Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
• Constitutional Principles
  • Secularism and Art. 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution
  • Secularism & Freedom of Religion in Indian Panorama
  • ‘Muslim Women: Ban to Enter Mosques, Is it Unconstitutional
  • Parsi Women Excommunication, Unconstitutional.
  • Knanaya Endogamy & Constitution of India
  • State & Court – Protectors of All Charities
• Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
  • Ayodhya Disputes: M. Siddiq case – Pragmatic Verdict
  • Sabarimala Review Petitions & Reference to 9-Judge Bench
  • SABARIMALA REVIEW and Conflict in Findings between Shirur Mutt Case & Durgah Committee Case
• General
  • Public Trusts and (State) Endowments/Trusts Acts
  • Public Trusts and Indian Trusts Act – An Overview
  • Business by Charitable Trusts & Institutions

---

[1] CR Shivananda Vs. HC Gurusiddappa: 2011 0 ILR(Kar) 4624

[2] CR Shivananda Vs. HC Gurusiddappa: 2011 0 ILR(Kar) 4624

[3]      27 ILR Mad 435

[4]      AIR 1953 Nag. 351;  AIR 1959 All. 473. 

[5]      (1972 All 273). See 1963 SC 1638.

[6]      ILR 16 Lah.85.

[7]      AIR 1957 SC 133

[8]      AIR 1957 SC 797.

[9]      AIR 2003 SC 1685.

[10]    Quoted in: Iswar Madan Mohun Vs. Priyamoni Dasi: 1971 Cal LJ  314, 1971-1 Cal LT 254; Rivers Steam Navigation Co Ltd Vs. State: 1966-71 Cal WN 854.

[11] page 36. Quoted in M. Siddiq (D) Thr.Lrs.  VS Mahant Suresh Das: 2020-1 SCC 1.

[12]    Quoted in : Shri Ram Kishan Mission Vs. Dogar Singh: AIR 1984 All 72; Also referred: Lalta Prasad Vs. Brahmanand: AIR 1953 All 449 (DB).

[13]    pages 102 & 103.

[14] 2018-8 ADJ 843; 2018-130 AllLR 591

[15] ILR 50 Mad 687

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

[17]    AIR 1937 Mad 750; Referred to Bhupati  Vs.  Ramlal Maitra (1910): ILR 37 Cal 128,

[18]    Quoted in: Shriomani  Gurudwara  Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs.  Shri  Som  Nath  Dass:  AIR 2000 SC 1421. See also: Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Religious Endowments: AIR1981 SC 798.

[19]    Deoki  Nandan  Vs. Murlidhar: AIR 1957 SC 133.

[20]    See also: Yogendra  Nath Vs. IT Commr: AIR1969 SC 1089

[21]    Quoted in Mahant Ram Saroop  Dasji Vs. S P Sahi  Spl Officer: AIR  1959 SC  951.

[22]    See Chapter: VESTING OF PROPERTY IN HINDU ENDOWMENTS.

[23]    AIR 1966 SC 1603

[24]    See: Sri Silambani Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar: AIR 1943 Mad 691.

[25]    Thiagesar Dharma Vanikam Vs. CIT:AIR 1964 Mad 483

[26]    38 Bom LR 1011 (PC)

[27]    AIR 1922 PC 123

[28]    AIR 1934 PC 77

[29]    AIR 1940 PC 134

[30]    Page 600, 21^stEdn

[31]    Deoki  Nandan Vs. Murlidhar, AIR 1957 SC 133;

Yogendra  Nath  Naskar  Vs. Commr. of Income Tax Calcutta: AIR 1969 SC 1089.

[32]    AIR 1999 SC 2131.

[33]    See Page 38 of ‘Dr. BK Mukherjea, J. on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts’

[34]    Quoted in: Yogendra  Nath  Naskar  Vs. Commr. of IT Calcutta: AIR 1969 SC 1089. 

[35]    AIR 1963 SC 510

[36]    It  is quoted in Ram Jankijee Deities Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 1999 SC 2131

[37]    AIR 1937 Mad 750: Referred to ILR 37 Cal 128

[38]    Quoted in: Shriomani  Gurudwara  Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar Vs.  Shri  Som  Nath  Dass: AIR 2000 SC 1421.

See also: Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Religious Endnts. Orissa: AIR1981 SC 798.

[39]    Vidyapurna  Tirtha Swami Vs.  Vidyanidhi  Tirtha Swami (1904): 27 ILR Mad 435

Bishwanth  Vs. Sri Thakur Radha  Ballabhji: AIR 1967 SC 1044;

        Deoki  Nandan Vs. Murlidhar, AIR 1957 SC 133.

[40]    AIR 1957 SC 133

[41]    Deoki  Nandan Vs. Murlidhar, AIR 1957 SC 133

Bishwanth  Vs. Sri Thakur Radha  Ballabhji: AIR 1967 SC 1044;

Yogendra Nath Naskar Vs. Commr. of Income Tax:AIR1969 SC 1089;

Profulla  Chorone  Requitte Vs. Satya  Choron  Requitte: AIR 1979 SC 1682

Ram Jankijee Deities Vs. State of Bihar: AIR 1999 SC 2131

M Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case): 2020-1 SCC 1.

[42]    Idol Baldauji  of  Dabri  Pittha  Vs.  Medh Rajput Association: AIR 1959 MP 330

Hindu Religious Endnt. Board Vs. Parasram  Veeraghava  Chrlu, AIR 1937 Mad 750

[43]    (1874-75) L.R.,2 Ind App 145 (PC).

[44]    ILR 12 B. 274

[45]    27 ILR Mad 435

[46]    1967 AIR SC 1044

[47]    AIR1969 SC 1089

[48]    AIR 1974 SC1355

[49]    AIR 1979 SC 1682;

See also:  Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji  Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228

[50]    AIR 1999 SC 2131 

[51]    AIR 2000 SC 1421

[52]    2020-1 SCC 1.

[53]    Smt. Mahani  Dasi Vs. Pareshnath Thakur: AIR  1954Ori 198;

Sankaranarayanan  Iyer Vs. Sri Poovananathaswami Temple: AIR1949 Mad 721.

[54]    AIR 1966 SC 1603

[55]   Profulla  Chorone  Requitte Vs. Satya  Choron  Requitte: AIR 1979 SC 1682

[56]    Jogadinadra  Nath  Vs.  Hemanta  Kumari Debi (1904) 31 Ind App 203

Silambani  Chidambara  Vinayar   Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar: AIR 1943 Mad 691;

Balram  Chunnilal  Vs. Durgalal  Shivnarain: AIR1968 MP 81.

Also: Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji  Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228

[57]    Bhupathi  Nath  Vs.  Ramlal  Maitra: ILR 37 Cal. 128.

[58]    Yogendranath  Vs. IT Commr: AIR 1969 SC 1089.

[59]    Page 46

[60]    See also: Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji  Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228

[61]    AIR 1957 SC 133

[62]    Commr. of Income Tax, Calcutta Vs. Iogendra  Nath: AIR 1965 Cal. 570 :

Decision reversed in: Yogendra  Nath  Naskar  Vs. Commr. of IT: AIR 1969 SC 1089.

[63]    See also: Hindi Religious Endowment in Board of Commrs. for the Hindu Religious Endowments Madras Vs. Parasram  Veeraghavachrlu, AIR 1937 Mad 750

[64]    AIR 1969 SC 1089

[65]    1967 AIR SC 1044

[66]    AIR1969 SC 1089

[67]    AIR 1979 SC 1682;

See also:  Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji  Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228

[68]    AIR 1999 SC 2131 

[69]    2020-1 SCC 1.

[70]See also: M. Siddiq Vs. Mohanth: 2020-1 SCC 1.

[71]    AIR 1979 SC 1682;

See also:  Bhagauti Prasad Khetan Vs. Laxminathji  Maharaj: AIR 1985 All 228

[72]    M.  Siddiq VS Mahant Suresh Das: 2020-1 SCC 1.

[73]    Yogendranath  Vs. IT Commr: AIR 1969 SC 1089

[74]    ILR 12 Bombay 247

[75]    See: Dr. BK Mukherjea, J. on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, page 35

[76]    Shriomani  Gurudwara  Prabandhak  Vs.   Shri  Som  Nath  Dass: AIR 2000 SC 1421.

[77]    Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts by Dr. BK Mukherjea, J.;

Yogendra  Nath  Naskar  Vs. Commr. of Income Tax: AIR 1969 SC 1089.

[78]    TaritBhusan Vs. Sri Iswar Sridhar Salagram  Shila Thakur: AIR 1942 Cal 99;

Menakuru  Dasaratharami  Reddi Vs. D Subba  Rao, AIR 1957 SC 797;

DeokiNandan Vs. Murlidhar, AIR 1957 SC 133;

Bishwanath Vs. Thakur RadhaBallabhji: AIR 1967 SC 1044;

Sarangadeva  Periya  Matam Vs. Ramaswami  Goundar Dead: AIR 1966 SC1603;

Yogendra  Nath  Naskar Vs. Commr. of Income Tax, Calcutta: AIR 1969 SC 1089;

Shrikalankade Visansthan Vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Nagpur: AIR1970 SC 439;

Radhakanta Deb Vs. Commr. of Hindu Reli. Endts, 1981 SC 798;

Bala Shankar Maha  Shanker  Bhattjee Vs. Charity Commr: AIR 1995 SC167;

Shriomani  Gurudwara  Prabandhak Comtee Vs.   Shri  Som  Nath  Dass: AIR 2000 SC 1421;

Union Bank of India Vs. Khader International Construction: AIR  2001 SC 2277

[79]    See also: AIR 1967 J&K 52;

Manohar Ganesh Vs. Lakshmiram, (1887) ILR 12 Bom 247.

[80]    ILR 37 Cal. 128: at page 141;

See also: Yogendranath  Vs. IT Commr: AIR 1969 SC 1089

[81]    Silambani  Chidambara  Vinayar  Vs. Chidambaram Chettiar AIR 1943 Mad 691;

Balram  Chunnilal  Vs. Durgalal  Shivnarain AIR1968 MP 81.

[82]    Quoted in: Yogendranath  Vs. IT Commr: AIR 1969 SC 1089

[83]    Page 36

[84]    Quoted in M Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case): .2020-1 SCC 1.

[85]    (1875)  LR 2 Ind. App. 145

[86]    ILR (1888) 12 Bom 247

[87]    M.  Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das(Ayodhya Case): 2020-1 SCC 1.

Thayarammal Vs. Kanakammal: AIR 2005 SC 1588

[88]    ILR (1904) 27 Mad 435

[89]    Quoted in M Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case): 2020-1 SCC 1.

[90]    (1909-1910) ILR 37 Cal. 128.

[91]    AIR 1957 SC 133

[92]    See also: Hindu Religious Endowment in Board of Commrs. for the Hindu Religious Endowments Madras Vs. Parasram  Veeraghava  Chrlu, AIR 1937 Mad 750

[93]    AIR1969 SC 1089

[94]    Followed in M Siddiq Vs. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Case): 2020-1 SCC 1.

[95]    Also see: Commr. of Income Tax, Calcutta Vs. Jogendra  Nath, AIR 1965 Cal. 570: Reversed in: Yogendra  Nath  Naskar  Vs. Commr. of IT: AIR 1969 SC 1089.

[96]    AIR 1999 SC 2131.

---

---