Public religious trust over estate upheld where revenue records and admissions showed dedication to the temple, not private ownership.

The estate of village Bahawalpura was treated as dedicated to the idol and temple, not as the appellant's private property, because the settlement records, especially the Wajibularz, described the Mahant as an ostensible owner while recording real ownership in the Asthan or trust. The muafi was linked to maintenance of the temple, and repeated written statements by the deceased Mahant asserted that all movable and immovable property in his name belonged to Thakurji alone. The appellant later accepted that position in revenue and compensation proceedings. On this evidence, the estate was held to be a public religious trust and the claim of absolute ownership failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the entire estate of village Bahawalpura was a public religious trust or endowment dedicated to the idol and temple, or the private and absolute property of the appellant.

Analysis: The settlement records, especially the Wajibularz, treated the Mahant as only an ostensible owner and recorded the real ownership in the Asthan or trust. The record also showed that the grant and continuance of the muafi were linked to maintenance of the temple. The deceased Mahant had repeatedly asserted in writing that all movable and immovable property standing in his name or in the name of Thakurji belonged to Thakurji alone, and the appellant had accepted that position in later revenue and compensation proceedings. These admissions, supported by official records and the conduct of the appellant, established that the estate was dedicated to the temple and not held as personal secular property.

Conclusion: The estate was held to be a public religious trust and not the personal property of the appellant; the appellant's claim to absolute ownership failed.

---