LexMAHANT SHRI SRINIVASA RAMANUJ DAS versus SURAJNARAYAN DASS & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
43G ·,,I \ " 1'1AHANT 'SHIU SRINIV ASA RAl\IANUJ nAs v. SURAJr<ARAYAN DASS &.ANR. May 6, 1966 [A. K; SARKAR, C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, R. S. BACHAWAT, . J.M. SHELAT AND RAGHUBAR D,1.YAL, JJ.) · A B Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939 (Orjssa 4 of ~939), -1\fath Characteristics of-Distinction between public· and pnvate trust-Math if governed ·by Act-Onus of proof of showing t'iat Math is outside Act-Gazetteer-Statements in-If evidence; · c ·The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments. Orissa, de- manded contribution under s. 49 of the Hindu Religinus Endowments Act and took steps to enforce . certain other provisions of the Act ·against the appellants and certain properties; · These properties, the · appellant~ claimed, were not math as defined in the _Act and the public had no free access to· its J>i'emises and had no right of entry or worship of the deity installed therein: The Commissioner held that the properties were math as defined in the Act. and that the proi;er- D ties constituted a 'religious endowment' to wh1ch the Act applied. Thereafter, the appellants instituted a suit and prayed for setting . aside of the decision of the Commissioner and for a declaration that the Act did not apply to the properties in suit. The trial Court dis- missed the suit, which on appeal was confirmed by the High Court. In appeal by special. leave. · HELD: .The appeal must be dismissed. (1) ·An institution comes within the definition of 'Math' if it satisfies three 'conditions (i) that the institution re for the promotion of the Hindu religion; (iH that it be presided over by a person whose duty is to erigage himself in spiritual service or who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples; and (iii) that the office of such person .devolves in accordance with the directions of the founder of the institution or is regulated by usage. f 441El ' There was ample evidence on the record·to show that the property was presided over by the Mahant, that the Mahant exercised spiritual headship over the disciples, and that the successfon to the office of the Mahant was regulated by the usage of the institution. There could be no question that such an institution must have been for the promotion of the Hindu religion. [ 441Fl Religious endowment includes the premises of the Math. If the premises of the property had been used both for secular purposes and for religious purposes, it according to the explanation to sub-s. (12) of s. 6, shall be deemed to be a religious endowment and its adminis- ~ration shall be governed by the provisions of the Act. This makes 1t clear that the premises of the math is not only deemed to be a reli- gious endowment, but is deemed to be a Hindu Public religious en- dowme~t to which the Act applies, as the provisions of the Act govern 1ts administration. It follows that an institution which comes within the ~efu;ition of math un9'.er the Act, ipso facto, comes within the expression Hmdu public religious endowment' and therefore be- come subject to the provisions of the Act. [441H-442Bl E F G H .. \- • •• • MARANT P,AMANUJ v. STJP.AJNARAY~.N (Dayal, J.) 437 A The definition of 'temple' requires that the place would be a temple if it be used as a place of public religious worship. There is no requirement that an institution to be a math must be a public in- stitution for the promotion of the Hindu religion. The use of the word ;public' was not necessary in connection with an institution for such promotion of the Hindu religion as. any institution for such Promotion of the Hindu religion must be of a public nature. the object being to B promote Hindu religion, there would be no point in shutting the bene- fit 01f the institution to anyone among the Hindus. [442C-D] c D E The distinction between a public trust and a private trust is, broadly speaking, that in a public trust the beneficiaries of the trust are the people in general or some section of the people, while in the case of a private trust the beneficiaries are an ascertained body of persons. The beneficiaries of a math are the members of the frater- nity to which the math belongs and the persons of the faith to which the spiritual head of the math belongs, and constitute, therefore, at least a section of the public. Maths, in general, consequently, are pub- lic maths. [ 442E-Fl [QUAERE: Whether there can be a private math or not?] (2) The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.