GOSWAMI SHRI MAHALAXMI VAHUJI versus RANNCHHODDAS KALIDAS AND ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 09-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VISHISHTHA BHARGAVA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
275 
GOSWAMI SHIU MAHALAXMI V ABUD 
v. 
RANNCHHODDAS KALIDAS AND ORS. 
September 9, 1969 
(V. BHARGAVA, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. RAY, JJ:] 
Temples-Tests for determining whether the Temple is 
public or 
private-Vallabh Sampradayees-/f followers of the school must wor.rhip 
in a private Temple. 
In deciding whether a temple is private or public, Courts have to 
address themselves to various questions such as :-
(!) Is the temple built in such imposing manner that it 
may 
prima facie appear to be a public temple ? 
(2) Are the members of the public entitled to worship in that 
temple as of right ? 
(3) Are the temple expenses met from the, contributions made 
by the public ? 
D 
(4) Whether the sevas and utsavas conducted in the temple are 
E 
F 
G 
H 
those usually conducted in public temples ? 
( 5) Have the management as well as the devotees been treating 
the temple as a public temple. 
Though the appearance of a temple is a relevant circumstance. 
it is 
by no means a decisive one. 
The architecture of temples differs from 
place to place. 
The circumstance that the public or a section thereof 
have been regularly 
worshipping in the temple as a matter of course 
and they can take part in -the f~stivals and ceremonies conducted in that 
temple apparently as a matter of right is a strong piece of evidence to 
establish the public character of the temple. 
If votive offerings arc being 
made by the public in the usual course and if the expenses of the temple 
are met by public contribution, it is safe to presume that the temple in 
question is a public temple. In brief the origin of the temple, the manner 
in w.hich its affairs are managed, the nature and extent of gifts receive;d 
by it, rights ex°"'ised by the devotees in regard to worship therein. the 
consciousness of the manager and the consciousness of the devotees them .. 
selves as to the public character of the temple ar~ factors that go to 
establish whether a temple is public temple or a private temple. [286,H-H] 
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors., 
[1964] 1 S.C.R. 561; Lakshmana v. Subramania, (1923) 
A.I.R. 
1924 
P.C .. 44; Mundancheri Koman v. Achutan Nair 
(1934) 61 I.A. 405; 
Deokl Nandan v. Mur/idar, [1956] S.C.R. 756; Narayan Bhagwant Rab 
GosavJ Ba/ajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and Ors., [1960] I S.C.R. 
773: referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : 
Civil Appeal No. 1784 
of 1966. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 17, 1952 
of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 385 of 1948 from 
original decree .. 
276 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 2 S.C.R. 
D. Narsaraju, A. K. Sen, Balkrishan Acharya wd S. S. Shukla, 
A 
for respondents Nos. 3 and 4. 
K. K. Jain, M. K. Garg and H. K. Puri, for respondents Nos. 
13(a) to 13(f). 
The J udgme,nt oi the Court was delivered by 
Hegde J. 
The main question for decision in this appeal is 
whether the Haveli at Nadiad in which the idol of Shree Gokul-
nathji is installed as well as the other properties detailed in plaint 
schedules A & B are the properties of a public religious trust 
created by the followers of Vallabh cult, residing at Nadiad. 
The history of the suit institution and its management as also 
the various pleas rnken by the parties have be~ elaborately set 
out by the :ffigh Court in a well considered judgment. Hence we 
shall refer only to su~h pleas as are necessary to decide the con-
tentions advanced before us. 
The plaintiffs are the residents of Na di ad. 
They are Vaishna-
vites. 
They belong to the Va!labh Sampradaya. 
They sued for 
a declaration that the properties me,ntioned in Schs. A & B of the 
plaint are properties oi the ownership of the trust mentioned 
earlier. 
They are suing on behalf of the Va!labha Sampradayees 
residing at Nadiad. 
According to their case as finally evolved 
that even during the last quarter of the 18th century, the Mandir 
of the Gokulnathji existed at Nagarwad in Nadiad Prant but in 
about 1821 a new Mandir was constructed by the followers of the 
Vallabha School at Santh Pipli, Nadiad and the idol of Gokul-
nathji which was previously worshipped at Nagarwad wa• ·.aken 
and consecrated there. 
In about 1831 they invited Goswami 
Mathuranathji, a direct descendant of Shree Vallabhacharya to 
come over to Na di ad and take up the management of the Mandir 
as its Maha Prabhu. 
According to the plaintiffs the Mandir in 
questicn was constructed by the Vallabha Sampradayees and the 
expenses of the sev

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