PRATAPSINHJI N. DESAI versus DEPUTY CHARITY COMMISSIONER, GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 909 · Decided: 11-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
'y 
PRATAPSINHJI N. DESAI 
v. 
DEPUTY CHARITY COMMISSIONER, GUJARAT & ORS. 
AUGUST 11, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Hindu Law: Religious endowment-Temple-Whether pu/>lic or 
private-Mixed question of-Fact and law-Dedication to public-
What is-Whether worshippers are the beneficiaries. 
A 
B 
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950: Sections 2(13) and 2(17)-
Temples of Shri Dwarakadhishji and Shri Trikamrayji at Patadi-
C 
Whether 'temples' 'Public Trust'-Tests for determining whether temple 
is private or public. 
At Patadi in the erstwhile State of Patadi in the Saurashtra region 
of Gujarat State there were two temples known as Sri Dwarkadhishji D 
Mandir and Sri Trikamrayji Mandir, which were constructed in the 
years 1872 and 1875 respectively by the then ruler with funds from the 
State Treasury. In the Gram Panchayat records the temples stood in the 
name of the deities, and the appellant, the former ruler orthe State, was 
shown as a Vahivatdar. The temples were exempted from payment of 
municipal and other taxes including land revenue. 
E 
The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was extended to the 
Saurashtra region of Gujarat State in the year 1952. 
The Deputy Charity Commissioner, sometime in 1958, suo motu 
initiated proceedings under s. 19 of the above named Act, and issued F 
show cause notice to the appellant, who was Vahivatdar of the temples. 
The appellant pleaded that the temples and the properties appurtenant 
thereto were private properties of the ruler and the members of the 
royal family, and were not public trusts. After txamlning witnesses, the 
• -v Deputy Charity Commissioner came to the conclusion that the shrines 
r had been dedicated as places of public religious worship and were, G 
therefore, temples within the meaning of s. 2(17) of the Act, and that 
the temples together with the properties appurtenant thereto consti· 
luted public religious trust within the meaning of s. 2(13). These find· 
ings were upheld by the Charity Commissioner. 
On an application under s. 72 of the Act, the District Judge held H 
909 
A 
910 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1987] 3 S.C.R. 
that there was no clear, cogent or satisfactory evidence of the existence 
of a public endowment, that the question whether the temples were 
dedicated to the public may be inferred from a long course of conduct of 
the founders and the descendants, and that the mere fact that the public 
was allowed access to the temples was not conclusive as to the nature of 
the endowment and that the department had failed to discharge the . ~ 
burden of showing that they were public endowments. 
1
-4!1
The department appealed to the High Court which held that the 
B 
c 
temples fell within the meaning of s. 2(17) of the Act and were, there .. 
fore, within ihe ambit of the expression "public trust" under s. 2(13). 
In the appeal to this Court, it was contended that there was no 
evidence to establish that there was dedication of the temples by the 
appellant's ancestor for the use and benefit of the public, that the 
findings reached by the High Court and the Charity Commissioner 
were vitiated due to misplacing of the burden to establish the existence 
of public endowment, and that the High Court was in error in holdin1: 
D that the temples were constructed by the appellant's ancestor for the 
benefit of the community at large and that the general public or a 
particular section thereof, had an unrestricted right of worship at the 
temples, merely because there was proof of long user by the members of 
the Vaishnava sect without any let or hinderance, that in the revenue 
records and the register of the gram panchayat, the temples were re-
E corded in the names of the deities with the appellant shown as a mere 
' 
F 
G 
Vahivatdar, and that separate accounts were kept in respect of the 
temples. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: I. The findings arrived at by the High Court as well as 
the Charity Commissioner that the temples were 'public temples' and, 
therefore, 'public religious trusts' within the meaning of s. 2(17) read 
with s. 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and not the private 
properties of the appellant or the members of his family are un-
assailable. [927C] 
1.2 The question whether the temples had been dedicated or were 
the private property of the appellant was essentially a matter of infer-
ence to be drawn from the other facts on record. There is clear, consis-
tent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence to est

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