Public temple endowment and mismanagement: evidence justified trust status and removal of the manager under Section 92.

A temple endowment may qualify as a public religious and charitable trust under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure where the surrounding circumstances, founding documents, conduct of the founder and successors, treatment of the property, revenue remission, and long public worship show dedication to public use as of right rather than private or permissive use. On the evidence described, the endowment was treated as public in nature. The record also supported findings of mismanagement, loss of property, inadequate application of income to the temple, and the manager's unfitness to continue, justifying removal and fresh administration of the trust.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the temple and its endowed property were dedicated to the public so as to constitute a public religious and charitable trust within Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) Whether the defendant had mismanaged the endowment and was liable to be removed.

Issue (i): Whether the temple and its endowed property were dedicated to the public so as to constitute a public religious and charitable trust within Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A dedication for the installation and worship of a deity may constitute a public endowment even without an English-law trust in the technical sense. The surrounding circumstances, the deed of management, the conduct of the founder and successors, the treatment of the temple property, the grant of remission of land revenue, and long public worship were all relevant to determine whether the worship was by the public as of right and not by leave or licence. On the evidence, the dedication was not confined to a family or private use and the endowment was burdened with obligations of a public religious and charitable nature.

Conclusion: The endowment was held to be a public religious and charitable trust within Section 92.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendant had mismanaged the endowment and was liable to be removed.

Analysis: The evidence supported the trial court's findings that the management had deteriorated, property had been lost, only a small part of the income was being applied to the temple, and the defendant was not a fit person to continue in charge. Such conduct justified judicial intervention in the administration of the endowment and removal of the manager in the interests of the trust.

Conclusion: The defendant was found guilty of mismanagement and was liable to be removed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the decree removing the defendant and providing for fresh management of the trust was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows that a temple and its properties were dedicated for public worship and held out for user by the public as of right, the endowment is a public religious and charitable trust; and a manager who mismanages such an endowment may be removed in proceedings under Section 92.

---