LexTHE POOHARI FAKIR SADA VARTHY OF BONDILIPURAM versus THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
111111 D1.:4mbtr 22 276 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS (1962) SUPP. THE POOHARI FAKIR SADA VARTHY OF BONDILIPURAM v. THE COMM£SSIO:IBR, HINDU RELIGIOUS A~D CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS (B. P. SINHA, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J,J,) Hindu Latcr-Endowmml-T•mpk-Public Tempfo- Conditi<>n,• of-ltw.m Regi•ter-Entries-lf could be accepted at IA•ir fo<:e valu•-Hindu ReligioU8 li:nrku:menta Act, 1926 (Macl. 2 of 1927), "· '9. cl. 12. The Emperor Aurangazeb made certain pranu to one Mukuldas Babajee, founder of the institution Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy, for the purpose of his maintenance and to carry on th~ distribution bf Sadavarthy to Fakirs etc. The sixth head of the institution built a shrine for his private worship. Tt was adjunct to the aforesaid institution, and the public had no access to it without the permission of Mahant. The income from various properties granted to the founder and his disciples had b<en regularly utilised for the maintenance of the head of the institution and for distributing charities for the Sadhus ancl pilgrims; a part was spent on the expenses of the worship in the temple. The Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madras held that the ternple in suit was a public temple. The sole qu<stion for determination was whether this institution WJ.S a public temple as defined in thr Act. Held, that an institution would be a public temple within the Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926, if two conditions arc satisfied; firstly, that it wa.; a place of puhlic religious W<•rship and secon<lly,. that it wa~ dedicatr-'1 to, or was for the benefit of, or was used as of right by the Hindu Community. or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship. \..\/hen there~ ~ood evidence about the temple being a prh·ate onf", th.e mere ~a~t that a numbrr of people \\'orship at the templt~, 15 not suff1c1ent to come to the conclusion th the temple must be a public temple to which those people ,)l as a matter of right a~ it is not us11al for the owner of tgo te?1p1e to disallow visitors to the temple, eVcn if it be ~e private one. Tn the pre"nt case the description of the temple with rr<:prrt to it" r.on~truction, equipment, practice:ir;, observances • 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 277 and the form of worship are not inconsistent with the inference from the other evidence that the temple is not a public temple. The temple is not a temple as defined in the Act and it is not used as of right by Hindu Community, or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship. Held, furtiter that the Inam Register is of great eviden- tiary value, but that does not mean that the entry or entries in any particular column or columns be r..ccepted at their face value without giving due consideration to other matters recorded in the entry itself. CIVIL APPELLATE JurusDICTlON: Civil Appeal No. 87of1959. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated April 6, 1955, of the forruer Andhra High Court in A.S.O. No. 134/50. T. V. R. Tatachari, for the appellants. Bhinui,pankaram, K. R. Chaudhuri anc! T. M. Sen, for the tespoudent. 1961. December 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, against the judgment and order of the High Court reversing the judgment and order of the District Judge, ViZ!lgapatam, holding that the place of worship in suit was not a temple as defined in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 11126 (Madras Act II of l927), hereinafter called the Act. On March28, 1947,theBoardofCommissioners for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Madras, held the institution in suit to be a tern ple as defined in the Act. The appellants, thereafter filed a petition under s. 84(2) of the Act, in the Court of the District Judge, Vizagapatam, and prayed for the setting aside of the order of the Board. They alleged that the institution, known as the Poohari Fakir Sa.davarthy, at Bondilipuram, Chicacole, a ongstanding institution, was st&i:ted by one Malukdas J9GI Tiu Poohari Fok Sadavarthv tJf BunJi/ipurarn v. The Commiuiontr. Hindu R..:Ji~ ious and Cluzritahl6 Endowments Raghubar D..,.J J. 1~1 n, Pooi.ri Fakir su-•"1 of Boodilipiu- v. 7L G.mais1iorur, BIUo Rtli1ioos a.d C.hOTila/JU F.Me~ls R.,iruw Doyal J. 278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. Bavajee, some time during
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.