9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the properties in question were private or public religious and charitable endowments. 2. Whether the deity was a family deity or a public deity. 3. Whether the public had a right to worship in the temple. 4. Whether the suit was bad for not joining the deity as a party. 5. Whether the appellant was entitled to the declarations sought regarding the nature of the deity and the properties. 6. Whether the trial court's findings on the rights of defendants 1 to 4 were appropriate. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the properties in question were private or public religious and charitable endowments: The trial Judge held that the suit properties were not the personal or private properties of the appellant, and that the properties constituted a public, religious, and charitable trust. The High Court concurred, noting that the properties were religious endowments of a public nature. The appellant's predecessors had repeatedly admitted that the properties were Devasthan inams, and the Inam Commission had recorded them as such. The appellant failed to produce conclusive evidence to contradict these admissions and findings. 2. Whether the deity was a family deity or a public deity: Both the trial court and the High Court found that the deity was not a mere family deity but a public deity. The courts relied on historical documents and admissions by the appellant's predecessors, which indicated that the deity was regarded as the owner of the properties and that the public had a right to worship the deity. The extensive ceremonies and public participation further supported the conclusion that the deity was public. 3. Whether the public had a right to worship in the temple: The courts concluded that the public had a right to worship in the temple. The temple's structure, the unrestricted access for the public, the extensive public participation in ceremonies, and the historical grants from various rulers all indicated that the temple was public. The courts applied the dictum that long-term public use of a temple for worship implies a public right unless proven otherwise. 4. Whether the suit was bad for not joining the deity as a party: The trial Judge warned that the suit might be dismissed for not joining the deity as a party. The High Court also noted that the absence of the deity as a party prevented a conclusive declaration regarding certain properties. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's failure to join the deity was a significant procedural defect, and it was too late to rectify this by joining the deity at the appellate stage. 5. Whether the appellant was entitled to the declarations sought regarding the nature of the deity and the properties: The trial court and the High Court both dismissed the appellant's suit, refusing the declarations sought. The courts found that the properties were public religious endowments and that the deity was public. The appellant's claim that the properties were private and that the deity was a family deity was not supported by the evidence. 6. Whether the trial court's findings on the rights of defendants 1 to 4 were appropriate: The trial Judge found that defendants 1 to 4 were entitled to customary worship and maintenance. The High Court modified the order regarding costs but did not disturb the trial court's findings on the rights of defendants 1 to 4. The Supreme Court noted that these findings were not necessary for the suit under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act but did not provide specific directions to alter them, as the suit was dismissed in its entirety. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to personally pay the costs of Respondent 1. The other respondents were to bear their own costs. The courts affirmed that the properties in question were public religious endowments and that the deity was public, with the public having a right to worship in the temple. The appellant's failure to join the deity as a party was a significant procedural defect, preventing any declarations in his favor.
|
