RADHAKANTA DEB & ANR. versus COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 826 · Decided: 13-02-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
II 
826 
RADHAKANTA DEB & ANR. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, 
ORI SSA 
February 13, 1981 
[S. MuRTAZA FAZAL Au, A. VARADARAJAN AND A. N. SnN, JJ.] 
Private v. Public endowments-Tests to deiennine on the facts of cacfi ca5e 
whether an endowment is of a private or oJ a public nature, explained. 
Allowing the appeal by ce11ificate, the Court 
HELD : The tests which provide sufficient guidelines to determine on the 
facts of each case whether an endowment is of a private or of a pubiic nature 
are : ( 1) Where the origin of the endowment cannot be ascertained, the ques· 
tion whether the user of the temple by members of the public is as of right; (2) 
The fact that the control and management vests either in a lnrge body of persons 
or in the members of the public and the founder does not retain any control over 
the management. Allied to this may be a circumstance where the evidence shows 
that there is provision for a scheme to be framed by associating the members of 
the public at large; (3) Where, however, a document is available to prove the 
nature and origin of the endowment and t'he recitals of the document show 
that the control and management of the temple is retained with the founder 
or his descendants, and that extensive properties ore dedicated for the purpose 
of the maintenance of the temple belonging to the founder himself, this will 
be a conclusive proof to show that the endowment was of a private nature; 
( 4) Where the evidence shows that the founder of the endowment did not 
make any stipulation for offerings or contributions to be made by members of 
the public to the temple, this would be an important intrinsic circumstance to 
indicate the private nature of the endowment. [833 A-El 
Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar, [1956] SCR 756; Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji 
v. S. P. Salli, Special Officer-in·Charge of the Hindu Religious Trusts & Ors., 
[1959] 2 Supp. SCR 583; Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Ba/ajiwale v. 
Gopal 
Vinayak Gosavi & Ors., [1960] 1 SCR 773; Bihar State Board Religious Trust, 
Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das, [1971] 3 SCR 680, Dhaneshwarbuwa 
Guru Purshottambuwa Owner of Shri Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan v. The Charity 
Com1nissioner, State of Bombay, [1976] 3 SCR 518; Gurpur Guni Venkataraya 
Narasltima Prabhu & Ors. v. B. G. Achia, Assistant Commissioner, 
lli11du 
Endowment Mangalore & Anr., [1977] 3 SCC 17, followed. 
In the instant case : (i) Ex. A. an ancient document executed as far back 
as February 18, 1895, the authenticity and the genuineness of which is beyond 
question, clearly and conclusively show that the endowment was of a private 
nature and the intention of the founder was merely to inste.l a famtly deity in 
the temple. (ii) The fact that the temple was of a massive structure of about 
25 yards in height, by itself, divorced from other things, could not prove that 
the temple was a public one. (iii) The Shebaits 
or the 
Marfatdars 
were 
appointed by the founders of the. endowment and the entire· management and 
control of the ten1ple \v<tS retained by the family. 
(iv) The fact t'hat b'1ogs 
.r41
' 
• 
~ 
• 
" 
• 
.,-. 
• • 
RADHAKANT v. COMMISSIONER (Fazal Ali, !.) 
827 
were offered during the day which \\-US in consonance with the rules observed 
A 
by the public is not of much consequence because bhogs are offered even in 
private temples. 
(v) aause 15 merely provides that if in future the family 
becomes extinct and no fit person could be found then any of the Baisnab 
Sarnpraday or any reputed Hindu of the village could take action, namely, to 
perform the work of the deity. This was a contingent provision and here also 
the founders did not confer the duty of performing all the work on the 1nem-
bers of the public but they chose or selected only a particular person belonging 
B 
to a particular community which also shows that even if the fan1ily was to 
become extinct, the private nature of the endowment was not to be changed. 
Indeed if the 
intention 
was to instal the 
idol in 
the 
temple 
by way 
of a public endowment, clause. 14 would have clearly provided that in cnse the 
family become extinct the members of the public or of the brotherhood or the 
Government could have taken over the management. 
On the· other hand, the 
interpretation of the various clauses of the documents clearly shows that suffi· 
C 
cient care has been taken by the Pani family to see that the dedication to the 
family deity is not changed even if the famil

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