BIHAR STATE BOARD OF HINDU RELIGIOUS TRUSTS versus BHUBNESHWAR PRASAD CHOUDHARY & ANR.

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 09-04-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
867 
A 
BIHAR STATE BOARD OF HINDU RELIGIOUS TRUSTS 
v. 
BHUBNESHWAR PRASAD CHOUDHARY & ANR. 
April 9, 1974. 
[K. K. MATHEW AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI, JJ.) 
B 
BUrar Hindu Religious Trusrs Ac!, s. 2-Dedicatio1i of properties to idol-
Wlien a religious trust. 
· 
· 
c 
D 
E 
The members of a family executed various documents the effect of which 
was that the executants had completelv dive.stetl themselves of any title to or 
interest in certain properties dedicated to a deity, and which, thereby, became 
the propertie~ of the deity. The appellant called upon the respondent, who had 
been appointed shebait and manager of all the dedicated properties, to furnish 
returns and the respondent filed a suit contending that the temple was not a 
religious trust within the meaning of the terms in s. 2 ( 1) of the Bihar Hindu 
.Re1igious Trusts Act but that it was a private endowment. The trial court held 
that the trust was one in which the public were interested. The High Court, in 
appeal, took a contrary view. 
Allowing_ the appeal to this Court, 
JI.ELD : On the facts of this case the trust should be deemed to be religious 
trust. as the DUblic are interested in it. 
The temple Was sitriated within independent compound walls and not within 
the residential precincts of the founders. 
There was provision for the appoint~ 
anent· and dismissal of pujaris. The onlv right that the members of the family 
had was to have a member of the f<imi!y as manager or shebait; but the 
shebait was subject to the superinte.ndence and control of a body of outsiders 
(t>anches) who were given the power to remove ·the shebait if he did not act 
properly_ 
There could be no better indication of the fact that -the members of 
the public were· associated with the management of the temple and interest 
in its management was created in them, thus bringing the trust directly within 
s. 2(g) of the Act. The ·tact that the provision regarding the panches was to 
come into effect oilly after the death. of the executants of the deed, does not 
affect the merits of the questiou. There was also provision for expenses over 
faquirs, -Sadhus and occasional festivals. Since the endowment was in favour 
of the idol itself proof of user by the public without interference would 
be 
cogent evidence that dedication was in favour of the public. (870 F-H; 871 C-D] 
Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar [1956] S.C.R. 756, followed, 
F 
Bh'agwan Din v ... Har Saroop AJ.R. 1940' P.C. 7 and Ranzsaran DaJ v. Jai 
Ram Das, A I.R. 1943 Pat. 135, explained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE J\JRISDICTION :--Ovil Appeal No. 
1871 
of 
f967. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 3rd May, 1965 
of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original J;Jecree No. 345 of 
G 
1960. 
H 
D. Goburdhan, for the Appellant. 
K. K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha, for Respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-The question for decision in .this appeal is 
whether the temple of Shree Maharaja Ram Janki Lacchuman Maha· 
raj in the village of Mauza D(ogan in the State of Bihar is a religious 
trust within the meaning of the term in section 2, clause (1) of the 
Bibar Hinliu Religious Trusts Act, or a private endowment. 
868 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1974) 3 S.C.R. 
Two broth.,rs, Ram Adhikari Choudhary and Ram Lochan Chou-
dhary, and Amir Prasad Choudhary, son of their brother, for him-
s.,lf and as guardian of Ramakant Prasad Choudhary, who were all 
members of joint Hindu family executed OJl 17: 6 .1921 a samarpan-
nama by which they dedicated certain properties to the above men-
tioned temple. 
By that deed of dedication they completely divested 
themselves of any interest in the properties except that Ibey and the 
m_embers of their families were to be shebaits. By the same deed five 
persons, who were absolute strangers to the family, were appointed 
panches "to take the rendition of account of the income and ex?"ndi· 
ture from the manager, shebait for the time being year after ye.ar 
on the death of the executants .... J,f in the opiniort. of the said pan-
ches ·the manager and shebait for the time being be found (illeg) 
and extravagant or there be any loss in respect of the income of the 
dedicated _property or the dedicated property which is at present or 
be acquired in future, in that case they should discharge the manager 
shebait for the time being and (appoint) other deserving manager, 
shebait, who be deemed according to the conditions mentioned ohove, 
in his place ·from amo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.