text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
Taking an inte grated view of the circumstances aforesaid, as appear from the relevant evidence on record, in our opinion, it must be held that the Vaishnavas were regularly worshipping in the temples as a matter of course and they took part in the festivals and ceremonies conducted in the temples and outside apparentl... |
The circumstances aforesaid lead to a reasonable inference that although the origin of the temples was at the instance of 918 then Ruler of the Patadi State, the funds which went for the construction of the temples were the funds of the State and, at least gradually in course of time, there was dedica tion of the templ... |
" We thought that on the overwhelming evidence on record both oral and dOcumentary no other conclusion than the one reached by the High Court was possible. Ratio |
The question whether the temples had been dedicated to the public or were the private property of the appellant was essentially a matter of inference to be drawn from the other facts on record and the findings arrived at by the High Court as well as the Charity Commissioner were clearly unassailable. Ratio |
Where in a case like the present, the creation of the trust is not lost in antiquity or shrouded in obscurity, the temples having admittedly been constructed by the appellant 's ancestor must, in the absence of a formal document of endowment, be regarded as the private temples of the founder and the members of the roya... |
The findings reached by the High Court and the Charity Commissioner that the temples were places of public religious worship and were temples within the meaning of section 2(17) of the Act and fell within the purview of the expression 'public trust ' as defined in section 2(13), are therefore vitiated due to misplac in... |
(3) The High Court was in error in holding that the temples were constructed by the appellant 's ancestor for the benefit of the community at large and that the general public or a particular section thereof, had an unrestricted right of worship at the temples merely because of the circumstance that there was proof of ... |
According to the learned counsel, these circum stances were non sequitur. Ratio |
He relied upon Mulla 's Hindu Law, 15th edn., para 424 at pp. Ratio |
544 545, Mukherjea 's Hindu Law of Religious & Charitable Trusts, 5th edn., paras 4.36 to 4.40 at pp. Ratio |
185 190, Nar Hari Sastri & Ors. PRE |
vs Shri Badrinath Temple Committee, ; ; Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji vs Rannchhoddas Kalidas & Ors., ; Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna vs Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das, and Radhakanta Deb & Anr. PRE |
As to the first, there is very strong and clear evidence to establish that there was dedi cation of the temples by the appellant 's ancestor for the use or benefit of the public. PRE |
"Endowment" is dedication of property for purposes of religion or charity having both the subject and object certain and capable of ascertainment. Ratio |
Hindu piety found expression in gifts to idols and images consecrated and installed in temples, to religious institutions of every kind and for all purposes considered meritorious in the Hindu social and religious system. Ratio |
Under the Hindu law the image of a deity of the Hindu pantheon is, as has been aptly called, a `juristic entity ', vested with the capacity of receiving gifts and holding property. Ratio |
The Hindu law recognises dedica tions for the establishment of the image of a deity and for maintenance and worship thereof. Ratio |
The property so dedicated to a pious purpose is placed extra commercium and is enti tled to special protection at the hands of the Sovereign whose duty it is to intervene to prevent fraud and waste in dealing with religious endowments. Ratio |
Dedication need not always be in writing and can be inferred from the facts and circumstances appearing. Ratio |
It would be a legitimate inference to draw that the founder of the temple had dedicated it to the public if it is found that he had held out the temple to be a public one: Pujari Lakshmana Goundan vs Subramania Ayyar, AIR 1924 PC 44. Ratio |
In view ' of this, the contention that there is no evi dence to establish that there was dedication of the temples by the appellant 's ancestor for the benefit or use of the public or a section thereof, cannot therefore prevail. Ratio |
On the contrary, the evidence discloses that although the temples had been constructed by the appellant 's ancestor, the cost of their construction was met from out of the public 920 exchequer and that the income from the offerings made by the worshippers at the shrine in the form of bhents and gifts of ornaments etc. ... |
That evidence clearly establishes that the temples were intended and meant by the founder for the benefit and use of the public. Ratio |
As to the second, undoubtedly the burden was on the Charity Commis sioner to establish the existence of a public endowment and that burden the Charity Commissioner has discharged by unimpeachable evidence of long and uninterrupted user of the temples by the general public and particularly by members of the Vaishnava se... |
The finding reached by the High Court and the Charity Commissioner that the temples were places of public religious worship within the meaning of section 2(17) read with section 2(13) of the Act is not vitiated by displacing of that burden but the finding reached by them is based on a proper appreciation of the evidenc... |
As to the third conten tion, we would presently deal with the circumstances brought out in the evidence which lead to no other conclusion than the one arrived at by the Charity Commissioner and the High Court, that the temples constructed 'by the appellant 's ancestor were for the benefit of the community at large and ... |
In the absence of a written grant, the question whether an endowment made by a private individual is a public endow ment or a private one is a mixed question of fact and law and the scope of dedication must be determined on the appli cation of legal concepts of a public and private endowment to the facts found in each ... |
Facts and cir cumstances, in order to be accepted as proof of dedication of a temple as a public temple, must be considered in their historical setting viz. the origin of the temple, the manner in which its affairs are managed, the nature and extent of the gifts received, the rights exercised by the devotees in regard ... |
In the present case, the temples were constructed at public expenditure by meeting the cost of construction from the public exchequer and the upkeep and maintenance of the temples was met by public subscription and therefore the High Court and the Charity Commissioner rightly inferred existence of a public endow ment. ... |
Such an inference was strengthened by the fact of user of the temples by the public or a section thereof, as of right for over a century. Ratio |
The general effect of the evidence is that the appellant as well as his predecessors although in management, had throughout treated the temples as public temples of which they were mere Vahivatdars. Ratio |
921 The essence of a public endowment consists in its being dedicated to the public; and in the absence of any document creating the endowment, long user is the material factor from which an inference of dedication may arise. Ratio |
The dis tinction between a private and public endowment is that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific indi viduals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof. Ratio |
The distinction is succinctly brought out in Mula 's Hindu Law in para 424 at pp. Ratio |
544 545 in these words: "Religious endowments are either public or private. Ratio |
In a public endowment the dedication is for the use or benefit of the public. Ratio |
The essential distinction between a public and a private endowment is that in the former the beneficial interest is vested in an uncertain and a fluctuating body of persons, either the public at large or some considerable portion of it answering a particular description; in a private endowment the beneficiaries are def... |
The fact that the fluctuating and uncertain body of persons is a section of the public following a particular religious faith or is only a sect of persons of a certain religious persuasion would not make it a private endow ment. Ratio |
The essence of a public endowment con sists in its being dedicated to the public; and in the absence of any document creating the endowment, long user is the material factor from which an inference of dedication may arise. Ratio |
Besides user by the public, conduct of the founder and his descendants is also relevant, and if they in fact held out the temple to be a public one a very strong pre sumption of dedication would arise. Ratio |
" It therefore follows that the principles are well settled. Ratio |
When property is dedicated for the worship of a family idol, it is a private and not a public endowment, as the members who are entitled to worship at the shrine of the deity can only be the members of the family i.e. an ascertained group of individuals. Ratio |
But where the beneficiaries are not the members of a family or specified individuals but the public at large of a specified portion thereof, then the endowment can only be regarded as public intended to benefit the general body of worshippers. Ratio |
We do not think that it would serve any purpose to refer to all the 922 well known decisions except a few. Ratio |
In Pujari Lakshmana Goundan vs Subramania Ayyar (supra), the temple was not an ancient one and there was no deed of endowment. PRE |
The question was whether the temple was a public temple or a private temple. PRE |
Although the temple was a private temple, the evi dence disclosed that the Pujari Lakshmana Goundan, the founder of the temple had held out and represented to the Hindu public in general that the temple was a public temple at which all Hindus might worship. PRE |
Sir John Edge, in deliv ering the judgment of the Privy Council held that on that evidence the Judicial Committee had no hesitation in drawing the inference that the founder had dedicated the temple to the public, as it was found that he had held out the temple as a public temple. PRE |
Another Privy Council decision to which we need refer is that of Babu Bhagwan Din vs Gir Har Saroop, LR 1939 67 IA 1 where the grant was made to one Daryao Gir and his heirs in perpetuity and the evidence showed that the temple and the properties attached thereto had throughout been treated by the members of the family... |
Sir George Rankin, delivering the judgment of the Privy Council held that the fact that the grant was made to an individual and his heirs in perpetuity was not reconcila ble with the view that the grantor was in effect making a wakf for a Hindu religious purpose. PRE |
That very distinguished Judge referred to the earlier decisions in Pujari Lakshar nana Goundan 's case, and observed: "Their Lordships do not consider that the case before them is in general outline the same as the case of the Madras temple, , in which it was held that the founder who had enlarged the house in which th... |
The cardinal point to be decided is whether it was the intention of the founder that specified indi viduals are to have the right of worship at the shrine, or the general public or any specified portion thereof." The learned Judge distinguished the decision of the Privy Council in Babu Bhagwan Din vs Gir Har Saroop, (s... |
the endowment was in favour of the idol itself, and the point for decision is whether it was private or public endowment. PRE |
And in such circumstances, proof of user by the public without interfer ence would be cogent evidence that the dedica tion was in favour of the public. PRE |
" It was also observed while distinguishing the Privy Council decision in Babu Bhagwan Din 's case that it was unusual for rulers to make grant to a family idol. PRE |
In Deoki Nandan 's case the Court referred to several factors as an indicia of the temple being a public one viz. the fact that the idol is installed not within the precincts of residential quarters but in a separate building constructed for that purpose on a vacant site, the installation of the idols within the temple... |
The next important decision is that of Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., [1964] 1 SCR 561 where a Constitution Bench of this Court had to consider whether the famous Nathdwara Temple which is held in great reverence by the Hindus in general and members of the Vaishnava followers of the Val... |
It was held that neither the tenets nor the religious practice at the Vallabha School necessarily postulate that the followers of the denomination must worship in a private temple. PRE |
The Court observed that the question whether a Hindu temple is private or public must necessarily be considered in the light of the relevant facts relating to it as well as the accepted principles laid down by several judicial decisions, and it was said: 924 "A temple belonging to a family which is a private temple is ... |
In the case of a private temple it is also not unlikely that the religious reputation of the founder may be of such a high order that the private temple rounded by him may attract devotees in large number and the mere fact that a large number of devotees are allowed to worship in the temple would not necessarily make t... |
On the other hand, a public temple can be built by subscriptions raised by the public and a deity installed to enable all the members of the public to offer worship. PRE |
In such a case, the temple would clearly be a public temple." "Where evidence in regard to the foundation of the temple is not clearly avail able, sometimes, judicial decisions rely on certain other facts which are treated as relevant. PRE |
Is the temple built in such an imposing manner that it may prima facie appear to be a public temple? The appearance of the temple of course cannot be a decisive factor; at best it may be a relevant factor. PRE |
Are the members of the public entitled to an entry in the temple? Are they entitled to take part in offering service and taking Darshan in the temple? Are the members of the public entitled to take part in the festivals and ceremonies arranged in the temple? Are their offerings accepted as a matter of right?" It was th... |
Another significant decision is that of Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji vs Rannchhoddas Kalidas & Ors. PRE |
(supra) where the question arose whether the Haveli of Nadiad where the idol of Sri Gokulnathji was installed which is wor shipped by the Vaishnava devotees of the Vallabha cult is a private or public temple on the ground of dedication, and it was laid down: "In brief the origin of the temple, the manner in which its a... |
" See also: Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna vs Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das, ; Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Purshottambuwa owner of Shri Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan vs The Charity Commissioner, State of Bombay, 18 and Radhakanta Deb & Anr. PRE |
vs Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa, ; ; Hari Bhanu Maharaj ofBaroda vs Charity Commissioner, Ahmedabad, [1986] 4 SCC .162 and Heir of deceased Maharaj Purshottamlalji Maha raj, Junagad vs Collector of Junagad District & Ors. PRE |
, ; We have carefully gone through the evidence of the witnesses examined by the Deputy Charity Commissioner as also the finding reached by him as well as by the Charity Commissioner which finding has been upheld by the High Court while reversing the decision of the learned District Judge. Ratio |
We find no substance in the contention advanced. Ratio |
There are overwhelming circumstances brought out in the order of the Charity Commissioner as well as in the judgment of the High Court and no other conclusion is possible than the one reached by them that the temples in question were public religious trusts within the meaning of section 2(17) read with section 2(13) of... |
The learned District Judge in interfering with the order was largely influenced by the fact that the management of the temples throughout remained with the ruler for the time being and while adverting to the other circumstances held that there was no evidence that the temples were dedicated to the public at large or to... |
In coming to that conclusion he relied upon the decision 926 of the Privy Council in Babu Bhagwan Din 's case (supra) as also of this Court in Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji 's case. Ratio |
The underlying fallacy in the judgment of the learned District Judge is that he proceeds on the assumption that there was no dedication of the temples express or implied by the founder for the benefit or use of the pub lic. Ratio |
Several circumstances are brought out by the Charity Commissioner and the High Court showing that the temples were public temples, namely: (1) Although the temples were constructed by the appellant 's ancestor way back in 1872 and 1875, there was positive evidence showing that the entire cost of construction was met fr... |
(2) The general public and particu larly the members of the Vaishnava sect had an unrestricted right of worship at the temples and participated in the festivals and ceremonies conducted in the temples right from the very inception, as it appears from the record, apparent ly as a matter of right without any let or hinde... |
(3) The Hindu worshippers at the temples in general and members of the Vaishnava sect in particular made cash offerings of bhents into the golak kept at Sri Dwarkadhishji Mandir or Haveli which was under the exclusive control of the members of the Vaishnava sect and the remittances of it used to be made to Goswami Maha... |
(4) The public records showed that the temples stand recorded in the names of the deities, the appellant and his predecessors shown as mere Vahivatdars. Ratio |
It was an undisputed fact that separate accounts being maintained in respect of the income and expenditure of the temples i.e. the cash offerings, gifts of ornaments etc.were not intermingled with the monies belonging to the appellant or the members of the royal family and the incomes from the temples were utilised for... |
That evidence shows that the public at large and members of the Vaishnava sect had been worshipping at the temples as of right for the last over 100 years and that the temples had all along been primarily maintained by the contributions made by the public particularly by the devotees belonging to the Vaishnava sect. Ra... |
In course of time the tem 927 ples particularly Sri Dwarkadhishji Mandir or HaveIi at tracted a large number of worshippers and they used to participate in the religious festivals and ceremonies per formed there. Ratio |
The evidence of the witnesses also shows that the deities were taken out in a palanquin by members of the Vaishnava sect and it was joined by the general public. Ratio |
The temples though adjacent to the Darbargadh were not in the precincts of the palace but were constructed facing a public road allowing access to the general public. Ratio |
All these cir cumstances clearly support the finding reached by the Chari ty Commissioner and the High Court that the temples were public temples and therefore public religious trusts within the meaning of section 2(17) read with section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and the temples with the properties at... |
The only factor relied upon by the learned District Judge was that the management of the temples remained with the ruler for the time being but then the Court has to come a conclusion not on one single factor alone but on a conspectus of all the relevant factors i.e.1 upon an appreciation of all the facts and circumsta... |
In the result, the appeal must fail and is dismissed with costs. RPC |
N.P.V. Appeal dis missed. RPC |
91, 99, 100, 101, 103 Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. STA |
AND & CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.699 703 of 1957. FAC |
Appeals by special leave from the decision of the Wage Board for Working Journalists published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary (Part IT, Section 3) dated May 11, 1957. FAC |
Dec. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20. 1958. FAC |
Jan. 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28. FAC |
M. K. Nambiar and G. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioners in Petition No. 91 of 1957. FAC |
The Working Journalists Act, 1955, is ultra vires as it infringes the fundamental rights of the Petitioners guaranteed by the Constitution under articles 19 (1) (a), 19 (1) (g), 14 and 32. Ratio |
Article 19 (1) (a) which guarantees freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of the employment of means to exercise those rights and consequently comprehends the freedom of the Press. STA |
The guarantee of an abstract freedom of expression would be meaningless unless it contemplated and included in its ambit all the means necessary for the practical application of the freedom. FAC |
(Freedom of the Press A Framework of Principles Report of the Commission on Freedom of Press in the United States of America, 1947; Report of the Royal Commission for the Press in the United Kingdom 1949; Ramesh Thapar vs The State of Madras, [1950] section C. R. 594; Brij Bhusan vs State of Delhi, ; ; Ex parte Jackson... |
If the impugned Act is viewed as a whole it will appear that it authorised the fixation of salary of working journalists at a level which disables the running of the press. Ratio |
The impugned Act thus, impedes, controls and prohibits the free employment of the agencies of expression on that section of the Press which form its vocal chord and therefore the Act infringes the freedom contemplated under article 19 (1) (a) and is not saved by article 19 (2). Ratio |
In judging the validity of the enactment it must be tested by its operation and effect (Dwarkadas Srinivas of Bombay vs The Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., ; , 683; Minnesota Ex Rel. Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.