Public trust and deity dedication established where long public worship and records displaced private ownership claims.

Long-standing admissions, revenue records, and historical conduct showed that the shrine and its dedicated properties were held for a public religious and charitable trust, with unrestricted public worship, festivals, and public offerings supporting that character. The claim of private ownership or a family endowment failed because the evidence of private title was insufficient to displace the settled documentary and historical record. A declaration affecting the deity's interests could not be granted in the deity's absence, and the court declined to grant partial declarations over selected properties. The burden to prove private ownership was held to lie heavily on the claimant where dedication to the deity and public user were established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the shrine and the properties dedicated to it constituted a public religious and charitable trust rather than private property or a family deity; (ii) whether a declaration could be granted in respect of certain properties when the deity was not impleaded as a party.

Issue (i): Whether the shrine and the properties dedicated to it constituted a public religious and charitable trust rather than private property or a family deity.

Analysis: The documentary history, long course of public worship, repeated admissions by the appellant and his predecessors, and the revenue records consistently showed the deity as the owner and the properties as Devasthan inams. The temple had all the indicia of a public institution: unrestricted public worship, extensive festivals and processions, offerings from the public, and a substantial temple structure built and maintained for devotional use. The evidence relied on for private ownership was insufficient to displace the long-established admissions and historical records.

Conclusion: The shrine and the properties were held to be dedicated to a public religious and charitable trust, and not to be private property or a mere family endowment.

Issue (ii): Whether a declaration could be granted in respect of certain properties when the deity was not impleaded as a party.

Analysis: A declaration affecting the interests of the deity could not effectively or finally bind the deity in its absence. Since the appellant had resisted impleading the deity and had treated all the items as standing on the same footing, the Court declined to reopen the matter or grant partial declarations on selected properties. The absence of the deity as a party was fatal to the requested declaration on those items.

Conclusion: No declaration could be granted in respect of the disputed properties in the absence of the deity as a party.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the finding of public trust failed, and the claimed declarations of private ownership were refused.

Ratio Decidendi: Where long-standing admissions, revenue records, and historical conduct establish that property is dedicated to a deity and used by the public as of right, the burden lies heavily on the claimant to prove private ownership; a declaratory decree affecting the deity's interest cannot be granted in the deity's absence.

---