HEIR OF DECEASED MAHARAJ PURSHOTTAMLALJI MAHARAJ, JUNAGAD versus COLLECTOR OF JUNAGAD DISTRICT & OTHERS

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 09-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HEIR OF DECEASED MAHARAJ PURSHOTIAMLALll 
MAHARAJ, JUNAGAD 
A 
v. 
COLIBCTOR OF JUNAGAD DISTRICT & OTHERS 
B 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1986 
-..{ 
[R.S. PATHAK AND RANGANATH MISRA. JJ.] 
_.\ 
Hindu Law of Religious Endowments: 
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950: ss. 2( 13), 2( 17) and 18-Haveli 
of Pushti Margi cult-A temple-Whether public trust-Tests to be 
applied. 
Gurus~va, Pradeshseva and Charanseva bhets-Offerings made 
at the feet of Guru-Distinct from those made before deity or put in 
Golak-Whether constitute personal income of Guru-Doctrine of 
Brahma Sambadha. 
Shrimad Vallabhacharyaji was the founder of Pushti Margi 
Sampradaya. Goswami Madhavraiji was a direct lineal descendant of 
-~ 
the founder. He came over to Junagad in Saurashtra from Amreli dis-
trict of Gujarat in the year 1776 with his own deity on the invitation of 
the Muslim Nawab. Impressed by his attainments the Nawab made 
grants of property byth for residence as also cultivation. On the prop-
erty gifted for residential purpose Madhavraiji raised a Haveli. It 
I · housed the deity in the ground floor and in the first floor thereof 
/' . Goswami Madhavraiji and after him his descendants and members of 
their families have been living generation after generation. 
The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was extended to Saurashtra 
area of Gujarat State in the year 1961. The appellant, the widow of 
Mah:frajshree Pnrshottamlalji, a lineal descendant of the founder, who 
had been in charge of the management of the Haveli and its assets, both 
moveable and immoveable, ever since the demise of her husband in 
1955, made an application to th~ Assistant Charity· Commissioner un-
der s. 18 of the Act in October, 1961 contending that the Haveli and its 
properties did not constitute a public trust. The Assistant Charity Com-
missioner and the Charity Commissioner found that the institution was 
705 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
706 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 
a public trust and that all the forty items of property belonged to the 
trust. 
In appeal by the appellant, the High Court held that (i) the Haveli 
Mandir was a public trust within the meaning of s. 2(13) read with s. 
2(17) of the Act; (ii) the moveable and immoveable properties which 
were thirty eight in number belonged to the trust; (iii) the appellant was 
the trustee of the temple and its properties, and the succession to the 
trusteeship was by inheritance without the sanction of the State, and 
(iv) Gumseva and Charanseva Bhets offered by the devotees of Val-
labha cult formed· part of the public trust, on the view that once 
Brahma-Sambadha is established, the Guru as also every devotee in the 
cult loses his individuality and his very existence (apart from the physi-
cal) merges with the Lord. 
In the ap11eal to this Court intervention by devotees was permitted 
mainly on the ground that the High Court had dealt with and relied 
upon religious custom and practice of the Pushti Margi cult and the 
treatment given by the High Court was wrong. It was contended for the 
appellants that the bhets to the Guru were offerings to him as distinct 
from offerings to tlie deity and in consideration of the feature that the 
Vallabha Sampradayin Guru enjoyed a special position, these offerings 
must be held to be his and not that of the deity. 
Allowing the appeal in part and dismissing the connected appeal, 
the Court, 
HELD: I. Pushti Margi Vaishnavas following the Vallabha Colt 
are Hindus and the Hindu Law of religious endowments is applicable to 
their havelies. It was, therefore, not necessary in the instant case, to 
scan their religious philosophy to decide the issue. [71 JE] 
2. The High Court was right in holding that the Haveli and the 
listed thirty-eight items of property constituted a public trust under the 
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and that succession to trusteeship was 
by inlleritance without sanction of the State. In reaching that conclusion 
the Court has scrutinised the evidence, both documentary and oral, 
keeping the proper perspective in view, appropriately utilised the five 
way test formulated by this Court and the other features relevant in 
determining the character of a Hindu temple, and taken note of the 
position that Goswami Maharaj enjoyed among the devotees as their 
spiritual leader. In a, dispute of this type, a single or a few features 
I 
·---(· 
MAHARAJ OF JUNAGAD v. COLL. OF JUNAGAD 
707 
would not provide the conclusive basis for the decision t

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