DHANESHWARBUWA GURU PURSHOTTAMBUWA OWNER OF SHRI VITHAL RUKHAMAI SANSTHAN versus THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER, STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 01-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
518 
DHANESHWARBUWA GURU PURSHOTTAMBUWA OWNER 
OF SHRI VITHAL RUKHAMAI SANSTHAN 
v. 
THE CHARITY COMMISSIONER, STATE OF BOMBAY 
March l, 1976 
[P. K. GOSWAMI ANDS: MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J 
Bo111ba) P:1blic Trust Act, 1950 (20 of 1950)-s. 2(13) Public or Private 
Trust-Tests for detern1i11ation of. 
The principles of law for determination of the question whether an endow--
ment is public or private are : 
( 1) In a private trust, the beneficiaries arc specific individuals who are 
as...:ertainec1 or ;::apable of being ascertained; in a private trust, they are the 
C 
general public or a class thereof which is incapable of being ascertained. 
[526CJ 
D 
E 
' 
(2) The intention of the founder as to whether specified individuals or the 
ge;;,ernl public or any specified portion thereof could have the right of worship. 
[526E] 
(3) When property is dedicated for the V.'orship of a family idol. it is a 
private :;.nd not a public endowment. Where the beneficiaries are not specified 
individuals, the endowment can only be regarded as public. 
[526·F1 
Devfd l\1andan v. Murlidhar, rt9561 S.C.R. 756 and State of Bihar & Ors. 
v. Smt. CilanHila Dasi, [1959] Suppl. S.C.R. 601/613, referred to. 
( 4) Proof of user by the public without interference 
would 
be 
cogent 
evidence that the dedication is in favour of the public. 
[527A} 
l\'aravan BhaRwaritrao Gosavi Balajiwala v. Gopal Viriayak Gosavi and 
vi hers, r19601 1 S.C.R. 773. referred to. 
(5) It is unusual for rulers to make grants to a fan1ily idol. 
[52781 
(6) Participation of the members of the public in the darshan in the 
t~rnple and in the daily acts of v,rorship or in the celebrations on festival 
occasions m:iy be a very important factor to consider in determining the 
character of the temple. 
[527E] 
Ti!kayat Shri Govifldlalii ft.,faharaj v. The Stnte of Rajasthan and other.l. 
fl9641 l S.C.R. 561. referred to. 
(7) The origin of the temple. the manner in \vhich its affairs are managed. 
the n::iture ::ind extent of the gifts received by it, rights exercised by the devotees 
F 
in regard to \vorship, the consciousness of the manager and the con<;ciousness 
of the devotee" as to the public character of the temple establish whether a 
temple is a public or a private temple. 
[527F] 
G 
Goswami Shri Malialax1ni Vahu;i V. Ra1111('/ihoddas Kalidas and ors. rJ97012 
S.C.R. 275. referred to. 
(8) It is not always possible to have all the features of a public trust 
in n given c.1.c;e; even some of the tests may be sufficient to condude about 
the character of the trust. 
[528E] 
Dismissing the appeal 
HELD: 
• 
In the instant case from the documentary and oral evidence 
the fo1lowing 
-I 
features are present : 
• 
H 
( i) The deity insta1Jed in the temple was intended by the founder to be 
continually worshipped by an indeterminate multitude of the Hindu public. 
(ii) Jn orJer to facilitate worship by the public. the founder also intended· 
that regular hhajan, kirtan and worship shall be maintained and annual ceremo~ 
nies and processions for pilgrimage shall be conducted by the saints in succession 
no1ninated by the reigning saint. 
I 
t 
l: 
• 
DHANESHWARBUWA v. CHARITY COMMR. (Goswami, J.) 519 
(iii) There has been no evidence of any hindrance or restriction in the matter 
of continuous \\.'Orship by the public extending over a long period. 
(iv) More than a century ago the tem:_ile, in its own name, was the r~cipie.nt 
of land by Royal grant and the same has been managed by the saints in 
succession as manager, not as personal or private property. 
(v) Gifts of land by members of the public from the Taluka and outside_ 
it in favour of the temple or of the Sansthan were made for the purpose of 
worship. 
(vi) Colle..:tion of subscriptions were made from house to house by taking 
Maharaj and also for 'Gui al' ceremony. 
(vii) lloldinu. out of the Sansthan to all intents and purposes as a public 
temple. 
(viii) Treating of the Sansthan by those who are connected with the manage~ 
ment as intended for user by the public without restrictions. 
(ix' Absence of any evidence in the lon~ history of the Sansthan to wa~rant 
that it had any appearance of, or that it was ever treated as, a private 
property. [530E-H; 53 IA-Bl 
The above features lead to the inescapable conclusion that Shri Vithal 
Rukhamai Sansthan is a public trust within the meaning of s. 2(13) of the 
Bombay Public Trust Act. 1950. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISD!CT!ON: Civil Appeal No. 1231 of 1968. 
A

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