THE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST versus RAMSUBARAN DAS

Citation: [1996] 3 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 29-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE BIHAR STATE BOARD OF RELIGIOUS TRUST 
B 
v. 
RAMSUBARAN DAS 
FEBRUARY 29, 1996 
[S.P. BHARUCHA AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 102-0nus of proof-Suit filed claiming 
an act done by a predecessor was not binding on the plaintiff as it was done 
-~ 
due to mistake of fact and law-Held, onus of proof to establish mistake of 
:>, 
C law and fact is on the plaintiff. 
Hindu Law-Temples-Nature of-Public or private Determination of 
One S, who was a Muslim, granted certain area of land to one M, 
who had constructed a temple on the said land. M died leaving behind two 
D 'chelas'. H, who was one of the chelas or M, purchased some land in 
another village and constructed a temple on the said land. H died and was 
succeeded by various persons. R, who was the successor of H at the time 
or abolition or Zamindari in 1951, tiled returns in which he claimed an 
annuity on the basis that the two temples were public tern pies. 
E 
F 
In 1961, the respondent, who was the nephew and chela of R, tiled a 
suit against the appellants claiming that the returns tiled by R showing 
the temples to be public temples were tiled under mistaken view or law and 
fact and were not binding on the respondent. It was claimed by the 
respondent that the properties were his secular properties or at best, 
private trust properties. 
The Trial Court decreed the suit or the respondent holding that a 
Muslim could not have donated land to a Hindu deity. The Trial Court 
further held that there was no evidence to show that the public had 
anything to do with the construction of the temple -and that the oral 
G evidence led by the appellant to the effect that members of public were 
allowed to enter the temples for 'darshan' was not of much importance as 
it would he against Hindn sentiments or practice to turn away the wor· 
shippers. In respect of evidence of endowment of certain properties to one 
of the temples by a lady, the Trial Court observed that an additional grant 
H hy a pious lady to the deity of the temple did not make the temple a public 
56 
STATEv. R. DAS 
57 
trust. The Trial Court further recorded that the evidence of the respondent A 
showed that R was ill at the time he filed the above mentioned returns. 
Against the order of the Trial Court, the appellant filed an appeal before 
the High Court and it was dismissed. 
Before this Court, the appellant claimed that since the temples were 
ancient, proof of its dedication to the public was diflicult to find and B 
therefore, circumstances in respect of the management of the temple and 
worship should be taken as the indicators of the public or private nature 
of the temple. 
Allowing the appeal, this court 
HELD : 1. The High Court and the Trial Court failed to appreciate 
that this was a suit on the basis of a mistake of law and fact. It was for 
c 
the Plaintiff Respondent to discharge this onus and the onus was made 
heavier by reason of the fact that the mistake alleged was not of the 
Respondent but of his deceased predecessor. There is no credible evidence D 
to establish that R had acted on a mistake of fact or law and therefore, the 
suit ought to have been dismissed. [60-D, Fl 
2. The fact that a pious lady could make a dedication of land to deity 
of the temple, and that it was accepted, showed the public character of the E 
temple. That the mahanths dealt with the properties in their own names 
does not detract from the fact that the temples were public temples as they 
could well be said to be dealing therewith on behalf of the deities to whom 
the properties were dedicated. [61-C-D] 
3. The Trial Court was in error in stating that the respondent had F 
given sworn evidence that, during the relevant period in which he had filed 
the returns, R was ill. The evidence of the plaintiff does not say that R was 
ill. This is making out a case of incapacity that was not pleaded. [61-E] 
4. The basis upon which the Trial Court observed that the grant did G 
not appear to be a grant to the deity and that it could not have been 
granted to a Hindu deity by a Mohamaden is not clear and it seems to be 
erroneous. [61-F] 
Bala Shankar Maha Shankar Bhattjee & Ors. v. Charity Commissioner, 
Gujarat State, [1995] Supp. 1 SCC 485, referred to. 
H 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 846 of 
1981. 
From the Judgement and Order dated 21.5.80 of the Patna High 
Court in F.A. No. 88 of 1966. 
B 
Lakshmi Raman Singh

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