HINDU PUBLIC AND ANR. versus RAJDHANI PUJA SAMITHEE AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 635 · Decided: 16-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

~-~ 
HINDU PUBLIC AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
RAJDHANI PUJA SAMITHEE AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 16, 1999 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
,, 
Hindu Law: 
I< 
Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 : 
Religious endowment~Public temple-Durga Puja and other religious c 
festivals celebrated on Government land since 1949-Later a Society was 
registered and lease of the very land obtained from Government for 90 years 
for the said.religious purposes-'l71ereafter, Puja Mandap and temples were 
constmcted from public donations and religious festivals were celebrated 
regularly year after year-Held, temples are intended to be public temples in D 
,.. 
which every member of the Hindu community entitled to enter as of light and 
ent1y not rest1icted to the members of the Society-Fact that membership of 
the Society is not restricted to any panicular religious community makes no 
difference-Durga Puja and other festivals are intended for the Hindu Public. 
Section 27-Religious endowment~overnment land obtained on E 
lease for 90 years and temples, Puja Mandap, shops, library, dhannshala, 
guesthouse, office rooms etc., constmcted on such land from public dona-
tion~Held, appeal calling for public donations clinchingly establishes that 
the Mandap, shops, garden, library, Dhannshala, guest house, office rooms 
and temples are all pan of religious endowment~Hence, appointment of F 
..... 
non-hereditary tntstees under S. 27 lightly made . 
Religious endowment~Public temples-Held, even assuming the 
proposition that a temple in order to be a public temple must be constntcted 
on land of which the founders are owners to be correct, still that proposition 
cannot apply to land leased for as long a period as a years. 
G 
,,. 
•• 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Sections 91 and 92 . 
. . ....... 
Oral evidence-Adducing of-Held, can be adduced to show that the 
recitals in a deed are nominal or not intended to be acted upon or that they 
are not meant to alter the existing state of affairs-Hence, oral evidence to H 
635 
-,.,--
\ 
636 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A show that a Society's main concem is celebration of Durga Puja and other 
-+. 
festivals can be adduced. 
Societies Registration Act, 1860 : Preamble and Sections 1 and 20. 
"Chmitable pwposes''---Meaning and scope of-Held, includes religious 
B pwposes also. 
WordS and Phrases : 
-i 
' 
"Chmitable pwposes"-Meaning of-In the context of Preamble to, and 
·Sections 1 and 20 of, the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 
c 
The appellant celebrated Durga Puja and other religions festivals on 
Government land since 1949. Later a Society was registered and the 
Government granted a lease of the very land for 90 years for. the said 
religious purposes. An appeal was also. issued to the public to contribute 
generously for these religious activities. Thereafter, temples, Puja Man-
D daps, shop rooms, library, dharmshala, guesthouse, office rooms etc. were 
constructed from the public donations and religious festivals were 
-"' 
celebrated regularly year after year. The membership of the Society was 
not restricted to any particular community. Certain social and cultural 
purposes were also included in the aims and objects of the Society. 
E 
Disputes arose between the members of the Society and the Assistant 
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments (HRE) rejected the oral 
evidence of the witnesses of the 'Hindu Public' regarding the aims and 
objects of the Society in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 
1872. However, the Assistant commissioner, HRE declared the temples as 
F public temples and appointed non-hereditary trustees under Section 27 of 
the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. .The Deputy Commis-
... 
sioner, URE allowed the appeal of the 'Hindu Public' and held that not 
only the temples but also the remaining land and buildings were part of 
the endowment. However, the High Court held that only the places where 
G deities were installed and the Puja Mandap were public temples and other 
parts of the leasehold land were not part of religious endowment .. Hence · 
this appeal. 
-" 
,....- ' 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the temples were 
private temples meant for the members of the Society only, that no Society 
H could be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1_860 for religious 
{ 
HINDU PUBLIC v. RAJDHANI PUJA SAMITHEE 
637 
purposes as the said purposes were not 'charitable purposes' under the A 
Preamble to, and Sect

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