1939 (10) TMI 14 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the order of the District Judge under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, precludes the respondents from disputing that the temple is the subject of a public religious trust.
2. Whether the temple property is private property belonging to the joint family of the Goshains or impressed with a public trust.
3. Evaluation of the historical grant and subsequent usage of the temple property to determine its nature as private or public.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Preclusion by District Judge's Order:

The first question addressed was whether the order of the District Judge made under the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, precludes the respondents from disputing that the temple is the subject of a public religious trust. The order was made in the presence of only five family members, and it was not shown that other members were bound by it according to any principle of representation. The Chief Court refused to regard the District Judge's order as conclusive, following decisions of the Lahore High Court and the Bombay High Court, and agreeing with the view of Niamatulla J. Their Lordships agreed with the Chief Court, holding that the decision of the District Judge under the Act of 1920 is a decision in a summary proceeding, not a suit, and not made final by any provision in the Act. The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to bar a regular suit even for a person who was a party to the proceedings under the Act. The foundation of the proceedings authorized by Section 3 of the Act is the existence of a public trust, and the District Judge cannot by an erroneous decision give himself jurisdiction. The terms of Section 6 of the Act define the consequences of such an order but do not exclude a contention in a regular suit that the plaintiff is not a trustee or prevent a similar contention being raised by a defendant to a suit under Section 92 of the Code.

2. Nature of Temple Property:

The second issue involved determining whether the temple property is private property belonging to the joint family of the Goshains or impressed with a public trust. The main document of title was the grant dated 2nd April 1781, whereby the Nawab of Oudh granted the property to Daryao Gir Goshain and his heirs. The grant was construed by a Court of the Nawab in 1843 and confirmed by the khasra compiled after 1857. The Chief Court noticed that leases of shop rooms on the outskirts of the temple property were granted by individual members of the respondents' family, not in the name of the idol. The appellants relied on the fact that Hindu members of the public had resorted to the temple for worship without let or hindrance and that an annual fair had become an established function. However, the Chief Court held that the temple property was private property belonging to the joint family of the Goshains, considering that there had been no previous interference with the temple on behalf of the public, the Goshains took the offerings for themselves, divided them according to their shares, spent money on repairs, gave leases in their individual names, closed the temple for family ceremonies, and erected tombs for family members.

3. Historical Grant and Subsequent Usage:

The third issue involved evaluating the historical grant and subsequent usage of the temple property to determine its nature as private or public. The grant of 1781 was not a grant to the idol or an endowment of a temple or a gift made by way of trust for a public religious purpose. It was a grant to Daryao Gir and his heirs in perpetuity, not reconcilable with the view that the grantor was making a wakf for a Hindu religious purpose. The subsequent history of the temple, including the decision of 1843 and the khasra at the time of the settlement of Lucknow, showed that the temple property was treated as family property. The family divided the profits, closed the temple for family ceremonies, and erected samadhis for family members. The Chief Court correctly estimated the facts and rightly negatived the contentions that the temple is a public temple and that the property is impressed with a trust of a public religious character.

Conclusion:

Their Lordships agreed with the Chief Court's conclusions that the temple property was private property belonging to the joint family of the Goshains and not impressed with a public trust. The consolidated appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.