THE STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS. versus SM. CHARUSILA DASI

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 15-04-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2) S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
601 
asthal and also prohibiting the respondents from in-
terfering . with the rights of the appellant in the 
management of the Salouna asthal and the properties 
appertaining thereto, unless and until the respondents 
have obt.ained the necessary determination that the 
Salouna asthal is a public trust. The appellant will be 
entitled to his costs throughout. 
Appeal allowed. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR & OTHERS. 
v. 
SM. CHARUSILA DASI 
(S. R. DAS, c. J., s. K. DAS, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR 
K. N. WANCHOO and M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Hindu Religious Trusts-Property relating to Trust situate 
outside State of Bihar-Applicability of Bihar Hindu Religious 
Trusts Act to such property-,-Legislative competency-Con~titutional 
validity of Enactment -
Applicability to private trusts-Bihar 
Hindu Religious Trusts Act, r950 (Bihar I of r95r), ss. r(2), 2(r), 3 
-Constitution of India, Arts. 245, 246, Sch. VII, List III, Item 28. 
Deed-Construction-Hindu Religious Trust-Private or Pub-
lie. 
A deed of trust was executed by the respondent on March 
II, 1938, when she was residing at D in the State of Bihar, in 
respect of the propertitl's described in the Schedules referred to 
in the deed, some of which were situate outside the State of 
Bihar. In the trust deed she described herself as the settlor, 
and it was recited therein that the settlor had installed a deity 
named Iswar Srigopal in her house and had since been regularly 
worshipping.and performing the puja of the said deity; and that 
she had been erecting a Nat Mandir to be named in mem<fry of 
her deceased son. The recitals also showed that the settlor had 
provided for the construction of two temples (Jugal Mandir), in 
one of which was to be installed the deity Srigopal and other 
deities, and in the other the marble image of her preceptor; and 
that the temple committee shall consist of the Jugal Mandir 
shebait for the time being and six pious Hindus who must be 
residents of D and of whom at least four shall be Benga!is. One 
76 
Mahant Ram 
Saroop Dasji 
v. 
S. P. Sahi 
S. I(, Das j. 
I959 
April r5. 
r959 
State of Bihar 
v. 
Charusila Dasi 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
of the clauses of the trust deed recited :-"The ' pronamis' and 
perquisites to be offered to the deities and image in the Jugal 
Mandir shall form part of the Srimati Charusila Trust Estate and 
neither the shebait nor any one else shall have interest or claim 
in or over same." 
The provisions of the trust deed in regard to 
the ceremonials relating to free distribution of food and water 
and the festivals to be performed for the deity and the image, 
which were well known festivals in which members of the Hindu 
Community usually take part, contemplated that they were to be 
done on a large scale so as to enable a large number of persons 
to take part in them. There was also a provision in the trust 
deed for the establishment of a hospital for Hindu females 
and a charitable dispensary for patients of any religion or 
creed. 
After the coming into force of the Bihar Hindu Religious 
Trusts Act, 1950, the President of Bihar State Board of Religious 
Trusts started proceedings under ss. 59 and 70 of the Act against 
the respondent in respect of the trust on the footing that it was 
a public trust to which the Act applied. The respondent made 
an application to the Patna High Court under Art. 226 of the 
Constitution in which she prayed that a writ or order be issued 
quashing the proceedings taken against her by the Bihar State 
Board of Religious Trusts on the grounds (1) that the trust deed 
dated March II, 1938, was a private endowment created for the 
worship of a.family idol in which the public were not interested, 
(2) that the Act did not apply to private trusts, (3) that the Act 
was ultra vires the Constitution by reason of the circumstance 
that its several provisions interfered with her rights as a citizen 
guaranteed under part !II of the Constitution, and (4) that, in 
any case, the Act was not applicable to the trust deed in ques-
tion as some of the properties were situate outside the State of 
Bihar. 
Held: (1) that on its true construction the deed of trust dated 
March II, 1938, created a religious and charitable trust of a pub-
lic nature. 
Deoki Nandan v. Murlidar, [1956] S:C.R. 756, considered. 
In re Charusila Dasi, I.L.R. [1946] l Cal. 473, explained. 
One of the relevant considerations as to whether the trust 
was a public trust, wil

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