BIHAR STATE BOARD RELIGIOUS TRUST, PATNA versus MAHANT SRI BISESHWAR DAS

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 680 · Decided: 09-02-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

680 
BIHAR STATE BOARD RELIGIOUS TRUST, PATNA 
v. 
MAHANT SRI BISESHWAR DAS 
February 9, 1971 
[J. M. SHELAT AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Bihai· Hindu Religious Trusts Act (I of 1951), s: 2(1)-Mutt-Pro-
_perty gifAed personally to first mahant-Passing in succession from Guru 
to Chela-Whether public religious trust within meaning of section-Tests. 
Gaibi Ramdasji was. the recipient of certain 
lands from 
the 
the 
Maharaja of Darbhanga and other zamindars. 
From out of the income 
of these lands a temple and certain residential buildinas were constructed. 
The estate -came to be known as Kamlabari asth•l. 
Gaibi ltamdasji was 
succeeded in the office of Mahant by his che/Q and thereafter succession 
to the Mahantship was froin Guru to Che/a. The respondent who was the 
reigning Mahant at the relevant time resisted the demand of the appellant 
for the production of accounts and other particulars under .the .provisions 
of the Biha'r Hindu Religious Trusts Act, I of 1951. The Board took out 
.criminal proceedings against the respondent, who thereupon filed a suit in 
which he claimed the astha/ and its properties to be his personal property 
outside the definition of religious trust. in s. 2(1) of the Act. 
The trial 
-court decided in favour of the appellant but the High Court took a cont-
rary view. 
In appeal to this Court. 
HELD : ( 1) Properties of the temple being admittedly in the posses-
sion of the Mahan! ever since the time of Gaibi Ramjidas the onus of proof 
that the respondent mahant held them on trust for p11blic purposes of a 
religious or charitable character was clearly on the appeallant Board who 
alleged that it was so. 
The trial Judge was, therefore, cleody in error in 
holding that the respondent mahant ought to have produced sarods and 
that on his failure to do so an adverse inference could be drawn vi:,., that 
had they been produced they would have shown that the grants to {;aibi 
Ramjidasji were for public purposes of religious or charitable charactor. 
[686 F-Gl 
(2) The mere fact that Mahaots of n. particular order did not marry 
and properties held by them is descended from Guru to Che/a was not 
indicative of and did not raise a presumption of such' properties being re-
ligious properties. If originally the property was acquired by a l\fahant 
the fact of its descent subsequently from guru to ch•la did not also lead to 
the conclusion that it had lost its secular character. [687 El 
( 3) Evidence that Sadhus and other persons visiting the temple were 
given food and. shelter was not by itself indicative of the temple being " 
public temple or its properties being subject to a public trust. [688 Al 
( 4) The mere fact of the public having been freely admitted to the 
temple cannot mean that courts should readily infer therefrom dedication 
to the public. The value of such pulolie user as evidence of dedication 
depends on the circumstances ''lhich give strength to the inference 
that 
the user \.\:as as of right. No such evidence of any reliable kind was avail-
able to the appellant Board in the instant case. [689 DJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
BIHAR RELIGIOUS TRUST V, B. DAS 
68 I 
(5) A religious mutt in northern India is generally known as cisthal, 
a monastic institution founded for the maintenance and spread of a parn. 
cular sampradaya or cult. · The distinction between dedication to a temple 
and a mutt is that in the former case it is to a ·particular deity, while in 
tbe later case it is tl> a supericil: or a mahant. 
But just as jn the case of 
the debutter endowment, there is both private and public endowment, so 
too there can be the same distinction between a private •nd public mutt. 
A mutt can be dedicated for the use of ascetics generally or for the ascetics 
oi a particular section or cult, in which cue it would be a public .institu-
tion. But it is not impossible to have a private mur~ wheTe tlr~ endow-
ment is not intended to confer beneftt upon the public .generally or even 
upon the 
memben 
of a 
particular 
order.. 
Examples 
do 
occur 
where the founder may grant propelrty to his Spiritual preceptor and his 
disciples in succeuion with a view to maintaining one particular spiritual 
family and for perpetuation .of certain rites and ceremonies which are 
deemed to be conducive to the spiritual welfare of the found.;, and his 
family. In such cases it would be the grantor and his descendents who are'· 
the only persons interested in seeing that the i

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