1976 (3) TMI 242 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Confirms Public Trust Status for Shri. Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan

Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Purshottambuwa owner of Shri Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan Versus The Chairty Commissioner, State of Bombay

The Supreme Court determined that Shri. Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan at Amalner is a public trust based on evidence of continuous public worship, management ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether Shri. Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan at Amalner is a private Devasthan or a public religious trust.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Nature of the Sansthan: Private Devasthan or Public Religious TrustBackground and Initial Proceedings:The case revolves around determining whether Shri. Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan at Amalner is a private Devasthan or a public religious trust. The Sansthan was established by Sakharam Maharaj in 1817, who constructed a temple and installed the deity Shri. Vithal Rukhamai. The Sansthan included movable and immovable properties with significant annual income and expenditure.Following the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, an application was filed under Section 18 of the Act by representatives of Vasudeobuwa, claiming the Sansthan was not a public trust. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, after an inquiry, declared the Sansthan a public trust. This decision was upheld by the Charity Commissioner but reversed by the District Judge, who declared it private property. The High Court of Bombay later reinstated the decision of the Charity Commissioner, declaring it a public trust, leading to the present appeal.Evidence and Documentary Analysis:The High Court considered both oral and documentary evidence, emphasizing an admission by the appellant's witness that the temple was meant for public Darshan. The appellant contended that the Sansthan was a private religious endowment, lacking evidence of long-term public use as a matter of right.Key documents included:- Sanad (Ex. 42) of 1863: This ancient Royal grant recognized the Sansthan as a public religious endowment, managed by a succession of saints.- Varaspatra (Ex. 35) of 1869: A deed of nomination indicating the property was entrusted and managed by successive saints, not owned privately.- Vyavasthapatra (Ex. 41) of 1897: Similar to Ex. 35, it described the management and succession of the Sansthan.- Gift Deeds (Exs. 40, 37, 39, 38): These deeds showed public donations to the Sansthan for religious purposes, indicating public trust rather than private ownership.Legal Principles and Precedents:The Supreme Court referred to established legal principles distinguishing public and private trusts. Key points included:- Public Trusts: Beneficiaries are the general public or an indeterminate class, and the trust is intended for public religious worship.- Private Trusts: Beneficiaries are specific individuals or an ascertainable group.The Court noted that the consistent public use, management by successive saints, and public donations supported the conclusion of a public trust. The Court also emphasized that the presence of public worship and participation in religious activities indicated a public endowment.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the Sansthan met all criteria for a public trust, including continuous public worship, management as a public endowment, and public donations for religious purposes. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Sansthan as a public trust under Section 2(13) of the Act.Summary of Findings:1. The deity was intended for public worship by an indeterminate multitude of the Hindu public.2. Regular Bhajan, kirtan, and annual ceremonies were conducted for public participation.3. There was no evidence of restriction on public worship over a long period.4. The Sansthan received land grants and donations as a public religious endowment.5. Public contributions and management practices indicated a public trust.6. The Sansthan was consistently held out as a public temple without any evidence of private ownership.The Supreme Court's judgment affirmed the public nature of Shri. Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan, dismissing the appeal and making no order as to costs.