LexDEOKI NANDAN versus MURLIDHAR .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1956 Laxnii Devi Sugar Mills v. N and K ishore Singh BhagwatiJ. 1956 October 4 • 756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956] lant to the respondent formed the basis of the enquiry which was held by the General Manager and the appellant could not be allowed to justify its action on any other grounds than those contained in the charge- sheet. The respondent not having been charged with the acts of insubordination which would have really justified the appellant in dismissing him from its em- ploy, the appellant could not take advantage of the same even though these acts could be brought home to him. We have, therefore, com!'l to the con- clusion that the order made by the Labour Appel- late Tribunal was correct even though we have· done so on grounds other than those whi.ih commended themselves to it. We accordingly dismiss this appeal but having regard to the conduct of the respondent which we have characterised above as reprehensible we feel that the ends of justice will be met if we ordered that each party do bear and pay its own costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed. DEOKI NANDAN v. MURLIDHAR . [JAGANNADHADAS, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, B. P. SINHA and S. K. DAS JJ.] Hindu Law-Religious end<>Wment-Temple-Public or private -Question of mixed fact and law-Gift to idol-Whether worship- pers are the beneficiaries-: Dedication to public-Construction of will -Ceremonies relating to installation of idol-fher of temple. The issue whether a. religious endowment is a. public or e. pri· va.te one is a. mixed question of law and fact the decision of whi°6b must depend on the application of legal concepts of • public and • private endowment to the facts found and is open to consideration by the Supreme Court. Lakshmidhar Misra v. Rangalal ([1949] L.R. 76 I.A. 271), re- ferred to. The di•tinction between a private and a public endowment is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries a.re specific individua.ls, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof, S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 757 Though under Hindu law an idol is a juristic person capable of holding property and the properties endowed for the temple vest in it, it can have no beneficial interest in the endowment, and the true beneficiaries are the worshippers, as the real purpose of a gift of properties to an idol is not to confer a.ny benefit on God, but the acquisition of spiritual benefit by providing opportunities and facilities for those who desire to worship. Prosunno Kitmari Debya v. Golab Ohand Baboo ([1875] L.R. 2 I.A. 145), Maharaja J agadindra Nath Roy Btthadur v. Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi ([1904] L.R. 31 I.A. 203), Pramatha Nath Mullik v. Pradhyumna Kumar Mitllik ([1924] L.R. 52 I.A. 245) and Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha v. Ram Lal Maitra ([1910] I.L.R. 37 Cal. 128), referred to. A pious Hindu who was childless constructed a temple and was in management of it till his death. He executed a will whereby he bequeathed all his lands to the temple and made provision for its proper management. The question was whether the provisions of the will disclosed an intention on the part of the testator to dedicate the temple to the public or merely to the members of the family. Held, that the recital in the will that the testator had no sons coupled with provisions for the management of the trust by strangers was an indication that the dedication was to the public. Nabi Shirazi v. Province of Bengal (I.L.R. [1942] 1 Cal. 211), referred to. Heldfitrther, that the performance of ceremonies at the con· secration of the temple (Prathista), the user of the temple and other evidence in the case showed that the dedication was for worship by the general public. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil AppealNo. 250ofl953. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 14, 1948 of the Obief Court of Audh, Lucknow in Second Appeal No. 365 of 1945 arising out of the de- ..,_ cree dated May 30, 1945 of the Court of District Judge, Sitapur in Appeal No. 4 of 1945 against the decree dated November 25, 1944 of the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Sitapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 1944. A. D. Mathur, for the appellant. Jagdisk Okandra, for respondent No. 1. 1956 Deoki N and an v. Murlidhar 1956 Deokl N andan v. Murlidhar 758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1956] 1956. October 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-The point for decision in this appeal is whether a Thakur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.