SMT. MARUA DEI @ MAKU DEI AND ORS. versus MURALIDHAR NANDA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 175 · Decided: 30-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. MARUA DEI @ MAKU DEI AND ORS. 
v. 
MURALIDHAR NANDA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 30, 1998 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. M~SRA, JJ.] 
Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 
A 
B 
Ss. 3 (Xlll), 3 (XI), 41 and 44-"Religious institution"-"Temple"-
Tests to find out whether a particular temple is a private or a public one- C 
Institution originated as Samadhis-Later, idols of Hindu Mythology installed 
and a pucca structure raised thereon-Deities regularly worshipped-Hindu 
public had free access to temple-Common religious festivals celebrated and 
public participated therein-Held, broadly speaking, features of constructions, 
idols and festivals celebrated indicate that the institution falls within the D 
definition of temple-High Court was right in taking adverse inference on 
vital aspects such as donations raised for construction of temple and other 
structures by holding that the institution was a public temple. 
S.44(2)-Scope of-Appeal before High Court-High Court re-
appreciating the evidence and reversing the findings of Additional Assistant E 
Commissioner and the Commissioner-Held, s.44 did not fetter jurisdiction 
of High Court from going into facts and appreciating evidence-Conclusions 
reached by High Court not perverse but supported by evidence and need no 
interference while exercising jurisdiction under Article I 36 of ·the 
Constitution-Constitution of India-Article 136. 
Evidence-Ought to have been made available by applicant-Not 
adduced-Effect of 
F 
Ari application under s.41 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments 
Act, 1951 in respect of an institution was filed by appellant no.2 (applicant 
no.2) and another person (applicant no. 1, before the Additional Assistant G 
Commissioner of Endowments for declaration that the institution was neither 
a public temple nor a 'math' as defined in the Act and; that it was private 
spiritual institution for the worship by applicants' family members only. It 
was claimed that applicantsi.[incestors_were saints and exercised spiritual 
_, headship over a body of disciples. ·The land belonged to them and they were 
175 
lI 
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A given Samadhi within the premises. Later, idols of gods and goddess of Hindu 
mythology, including those of Balabhadra, Jagannatha and Shubhadra were 
installed on the Smadhis. The applicants also were said to have commanded 
spiritual headship over a large number of disciples who offered 'Pranami' 
to them. The said money was used in building the pucca structure and 
B installing idols for worship by their family members. The public was generally 
allowed to worship but not as of right. 
The respondents contested the application contending that the institution 
was a public religious institutipn; though the institution originated as 
samadhis, it developed into a teni'ple where Hindu deities were regularly 
C worshipped; the Hindu public had free access to the temple as of right, 
common religious festivals like Rath Jatra, Dola Jatra; Jhoola Jatra etc. 
were celebrated in the institution and Hindu public participated in those 
functions. It was also stated that the main temple with its subsidiary temples 
were built with the subscriptions raised from the public. 
D 
The Additional Assistant Commissioner as also the Commissioner 
held in favour of the applicants, but the High Court on re-appreciation of 
pleadings and the evidence held that the institution fell within the definition 
of temple. Aggrieved the applicants filed the present appeals. 
E 
It was contended for the appellants that the institution whi~h originated 
as private family Samadhis on the land belonging to their ancestors continued 
to remain Samadhis and the character never changed; there was no document 
to establish any endowment for any purpose nor the object of the founders 
was to promote Hinduism; the 'pranami' was given to the persons and not 
to idols; there was no proof of public construction, and access to the temple 
F by the public was not as a matter of right. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. I. The High Court was right in holding that the institution 
G in question is a public temple within the meaning of the Orissa Hindu 
Religious Endowments Act, 1951. The High Court has elaborately dealt with 
the matter and had given reasons for not accepting the findings of the 
authorities below. Broadly speaking, the features of constructions, idols and 
the festivals held, as noticed by the authorities and t

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