Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
PETITIONER:
HEIR OF DECEASED MAHARAJ PURSHOTTAMLALJIMAHARAJ, JUNAGADCOLL
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/09/1986
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION:
1986 AIR 2094 1986 SCR (3) 705
1986 SCC (4) 287 JT 1986 387
1986 SCALE (2)400
CITATOR INFO :
R 1987 SC2064 (15)
ACT:
Hindu Law of Religious Endowments:
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950: ss. 2(13), 2(17) and
18-Haveli of Pushti Margi cult-A temple-Whether public
trust-Tests to be applied.
Guruseva, Pradeshseva and Charanseva bhets-Offerings
made at the feet of Guru-Distinct from those made before
deity or put in Golak-Whether constitute personal income of
Guru-Doctrine of Brahma Sambadha.
HEADNOTE:
Shrimad Vallabhacharyaji was the founder of Pushti
Margi Sampradaya. Goswami Madhavraiji was a direct lineal
descendant of the founder. He came over to Junagad in
Saurashtra from Amreli district of Gujarat in the year 1776
with his own deity on the invitation of the Muslim Nawab.
Impressed by his attainments the Nawab made grants of
property both for residence as also cultivation. On the
property gifted for residential purpose Madhavraiji raised a
Haveli. It housed the deity in the ground floor and in the
first floor thereof Goswami Madhavraiji and after him his
descendants and members of their families have been living
generation after generation.
The Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 was extended to
Saurashtra area of Gujarat State in the year 1961. The
appellant. the widow of Maharajshree Purshottamlalji, a
lineal descendant of the founder, who had been in charge of
the management of the Haveli and its assets, both moveable
and immoveable, ever since the demise of her husband in
1955, made an application to the Assistant Charity
Commissioner under s. 18 of the Act in October, 1961
contending that the Haveli and its properties did not
constitute a public trust. The Assistant Charity
Commissioner and the Charity Commissioner found that the
institution was
706
a public trust and that all the forty items of property
belonged to the trust.
In appeal by the appellant, the High Court held that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
(i) the Haveli Mandir was a public trust within the meaning
of s. 2(13) read with s. 2(17) of the Act; (ii) the moveable
and immoveable properties which were thirty eight in number
belonged to the trust; (iii) the appellant was the trustee
of the temple and its properties, and the succession to the
trusteeship was by inheritance without the sanction of the
State, and (iv) Guruseva and Charanseva Bhets offered by the
devotees of Vallabha cult formed part of the public trust,
on the view that once Brahma-Sambadha is established, the
Guru as also every devotee in the cult loses his
individuality and his very existence (apart from the
physical) merges with the Lord.
In the appeal to this Court intervention by devotees
was permitted mainly on the ground that the High Court had
dealt with and relied upon religious custom and practice of
the Pushti Margi cult and the treatment given by the High
Court was wrong. It was contended for the appellants that
the bhets to the Guru were offerings to him as distinct from
offerings to the deity and in consideration of the feature
that the Vallabha Sampradayin Guru enjoyed a special
position, these offerings must be held to be his and not
that of the deity.
Allowing the appeal in part and dismissing the
connected appeal, the Court,
^
HELD: 1. Pushti Margi Vaishnavas following the Vallabha
Cult are Hindus and the Hindu Law of religious endowments is
applicable to p their havelies. lt was, therefore, not
necessary in the instant case, to scan their religious
philosophy to decide the issue. [711E]
2. The High Court was right in holding that the Haveli
and the listed thirty-eight items of property constituted a
public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and
that succession to trusteeship was by inheritance without
sanction of the State. In reaching that conclusion the Court
has scrutinised the evidence, both documentary and oral,
keeping the proper perspective in view, appropriately
utilised the five way test formulated by this Court and the
other features relevant in determining the character of a
Hindu temple, and taken note of the position that Goswami
Maharaj enjoyed among the devotees as their spiritual
leader. In a dispute of this type, a single or a few
features
707
would not provide the conclusive basis for the decision to
be arrived at. A The entire material has to be scanned and
the ultimate decision has to rest on the sum total view.
[715A-B; 714F-G]
Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. The State of
Rajasthan and others, 119641 1 SCR 561; Goswami Shri
Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Rannchhoddas Kalidas and Ors., [1970] 2
SCR 275; and Tagore Law Lectures on Hindu Law of Religious
and Charitable Trusts by Dr. B. K. Mukherjea, refereed to.
3.1 The proceeds of the Guruseva and Pradeshseva do not
constitute part of the public trust. [716G]
3.2 Vallabha and his descendants enjoyed a special
position in the community of devotees. They have been
leading collective and congregational prayers within the
Haveli and acting as the religious preceptor of the
devotees. It is customary for a devotee to make offerings at
the feet of the Maharaj when he meets him in the Haveli or
during his visits to areas coming within the territorial
limits of the Haveli. [715D-E]
3.3 There is a distinction between an offering made
before the deity or put into the Golak and that put at the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
feet of the Guru. In the earlier case, it is clearly a gift
to the deity while in the latter, in the absence of anything
more, it would be one to the Guru, for what is laid at the
feet of the Guru is intended to be an offering to him and
not to the deity. [716E]
3.4 The doctrine of Brahma-Sambadha is not applicable
to the instant case, for nothing has been shown from the
record to justify the conclusion that the Guru is only a
conduit pipe between the devotee at one end and the Lord on
the other so as to lead to an inference that whatever is
offered at the feet of the Guru belongs to the Lord. The
preceptor has his position and if he is not a conduit pipe
in the sense stated, what is laid at his feet out of
reverance by the devotee must belong to him. In view thereof
the finding of the High Court on this issue cannot,
therefore . be sustained . [7l6B-C]
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt. [1954] SCR
1005, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3168 &
3167 of 1986
708
From the Judgment and order dated 21.9.1984 of the
Gujarat High Court in First Appeal no. 163 of 1974 and Civil
Application No. 9 of 1982.
B.K. Mehta, A.B. Maniar and Ms. Indu Sharma for the
Appellant in C.A. No. 3168 of 1986.
P.H. Parekh and P.K. Manohar for the Appellant in C.A.
No. 3167 of 1986.
S.H. Seth, T.U. Mehta, Vimal Dave, C.D. Kakkad, Ajay.
Rajeshwar Rao and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.
T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer and Mukul Mudgal for the
Intervener in C.A. No. 3168 of 1986.
Anil K. Nauriya and K.L. Hathi for the Intervener in
C.A. No. 3167 of 1986.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. These two appeals by special leave
assail the judgment of the Gujarat High Court substantially
affirming the appellate decision of the Charity Commissioner
that the Pushti Margiya Moti Havali at Junagad and thirty-
eight items of its properties constitute a public trust
under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
The appellant is the widow of Maharajshri
Purshottamlalji who admittedly was a lineal descendant of
Shrimad Vallabhacharyaji, the founder of the Pushti Margi
Sampradaya. Purshottamlalji passed away in 1955 and, after
him, the appellant has been in charge of the management of
the Haveli and its assets both moveable and immoveable. The
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as
’the Act’) was extended to Saurashtra area of the Gujarat
State in the year 1961. In October 1961, the appellant made
an application to the Assistant Charity Commissioner at
Rajkot under section 18 of the Act contending that the
Haveli and its properties did not constitute a public trust.
An inquiry followed to determine the character of the
institution and the Assistant Charity Commissioner and the
Charity Commissioner found that the institution was a public
trust and all the forty items of property belonged to that
trust. The High Court on appeal by the appellant has,
however, recorded the following findings:
709
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
(1) Haveli Mandir at Junagad is a public trust
within the A meaning of section 2(13) read with
section 2(17) of the Act.
(2) The moveable and immoveable properties
appearing in the appendices A and in the judgment
of the Charity Commissioner excepting two items of
immoveable property covered by Exhibits 265 and
268 belong to the trust. In the absence of any
challenge against exclusion of the two items from
the purview of the trust, the same are no more in
dispute.
(3) The appellant is the trustee of the temple and
its properties, Succession to trusteeship is by
inheritence without the sanction of the State
Government.
(4) Guruseva Bhet and Charanseva Bhet offered by
the devotees of Vallabha cult form part of the
public trust.
While recording these specific findings the High Court
has affirmed the findings of the Charity Commissioner on all
other issues.
Shrimad Vallabhacharyaji, the founder of Pushti Margi
Sampradaya is usually referred to as Mahaprabhuji. The
lineal descendants of Mahaprabhuji are known as Goswami
Maharajshree. Goswami Madhavraiji, a direct lineal
descendant of the founder of the cult was living at Chittal
now in Amreli district of Gujarat. Some time in 1776 A.D.,
the Hindu Diwan Amarji of the Muslim Nawab of Junagad
extended invitation to Madhavraiji to come to Junagad and he
came there with his own deity. The Muslim Nawab was
impressed by the attainments of Madhavraiji, made grants of
property both for residence as also cultivation, and on the
property gifted for residential purpose, Madhavraiji raised
the Haveli. It houses the deity in the ground floor and in
the first floor thereof Goswami Maharajshree and members of
his family have been living generation after generation.
Indisputably, the devotees of the Sampradaya hold the
Maharaj in great esteem and reverence and consider him as
the living representative of the Lord.
Before the High Court long and detailed arguments
appear to have been canvassed and on the basis thereof, the
High Court formulated the following points for
determination:
710
(i) Whether the Haveli Mandir of Madan Mohanlalji
situated at Junagad is a public charitable trust
within the meaning of section 2(13) read with
section 2(17) of the Act?
(ii) Whether the moveable and immoveable
properties described in appendices A and in the
judgment of the Charity Commissioner belong to the
said public trust?
(iii) What is the mode of succession to
trusteeship of the trust?
(iv) What are the sources of income of the said
trust?
The High Court went into the matter at great length,
settled the tests to be applied for determining the
character of the institution by carefully referring to
several decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, different High Courts and this Court; examined the
documentary as also the oral evidence analytically and
relied upon the following features for coming to the
conclusion that the Haveli and the thirty-eight properties
constituted a public trust:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
(1) Grants of property by the State of Junagad for
construction of Haveli and its upkeep; gifts of
immoveable properties from time to time by
devotees.
(2) Donations for repairs, renovation and
expansion from the devotees of the Sampradaya;
(3) Tablets placed on the walls of the Haveli
showing particulars of substantial donations;
(4) Right of darshan enjoyed by devotees at large;
(5) Holding of religious festivities and
performances on grand scale;
(6) Placing of Golaks (hundies) in different parts
of the haveli for collection of offerings from
devotees visiting the temple;
(7) Service rendered by the devotees for
maintenance and upkeep of the haveli;
MANOHAR
711
(8) Treatment meted by the State over the years
towards A the temple;
(9) The get-up of the Haveli; and
(l0) The contents of the application for
registration of the haveli (Exh. 36) and the stand
of the appellant with reference to the same.
While dealing with these features, the High Court
considered certain other aspects-some connected with the
above and others not-and in an elaborate and well-considered
judgment came to the conclusions which have already been
indicated.
In this Court intervention by devotees was asked for
mainly on the ground that the High Court had dealt with and
relied upon religious customs and practices of the Pushti
Margi Cult and the treatment given by the High Court was
wrong. This Court permitted intervention confined to written
submissions. Eleven thousand and twelve affidavits came to
be filled by the devotees of the cult and at the hearing,
one of them on his persistent request, was heard for some
time. A plea was made that the questions in dispute could be
disposed of without going at length into the religious
philosophy of the Cult. Admittedly Pushti Margi Vaishnavas
following the Vallabha Cult are Hindus and the Hindu law of
religious endowments is applicable to their havelis. It is,
therefore, unnecessary to scan their religious philosophy at
length to decide the present dispute.
This Court had occasion twice to deal with disputes
relating to the nature of temples of this cult and it is
appropriate that we refer to them at this stage. A five
Judge Bench in Tilkayat Shri Govindlalji Maharaj v. The
State of Rajasthan and others, [1964] 1 SCR 561 was called
upon to adjudicate the character of the famous Nathdwara
Temple. It had been canvassed on behalf of the Tilkayat that
it was against the tenets of the Vallabha School to worship
in public temples. This Court held:
"Therefore, we are satisfied that neither the
terms nor the religious practices of the Vallabha
School necessarily postulates that the followers
of the School must worship in a private temple,
some temples of this cult may have been private in
the past and some of them may be private even
712
today. Whether or not a particular temple is a
public temple must necessarily be considered in
the light of the relevant facts relating to it.
There can be no general rule that a public temple
is prohibited in Vallabha School."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
This conclusion appeals to us and we are also bound to
accept the same as a correct proposition. In Goswami Shri
Mahalaxmi Vahuji v. Rannchhoddas Kalidas and ors., [1970] 2
SCR 275 where the dispute related to the character of the
Haveli at Nadiad, a three Judge Bench followed the
conclusion in Tilkayat’s case (supra) that there was no
restriction on worship in public temples in the Vallabha
tenets. It was further stated:
"Yet another contention taken on behalf of the
appellant is that the architecture of the building
in which Gokulnathji is housed and the nature of
that building is such as to show that it is not a
public temple. It was urged that building does not
possess any of the characteristics of a Hindu
temple. It has not even a dome. This contention
again has lost much of its force in view of the
decision of this Court refer red to earlier
(Tilakayat’s case). Evidence establishes that
Vallabha’s son and his immediate successor
Vithaleswar had laid down a plan for the
construction of temples by the Vallabha
Sampradayes. He did not approve the idea of
constructing rich and costly buildings for
temples. Evidently he realized that religious
temple buildings were not safe under the Mohamedan
rule. For this reason he advised his followers to
construct temples of extremely simple type. The
external view of those temples gave the appearance
of dwelling houses. It appears to be a common
feature of the temples belonging to the Vallabha
Sampradayes that the ground floor is used as the
place of worship and the first floor is used as
the residence of Goswami Maharaj .. "
The Haveli at Nadiad was held to be a public trust
notwithstanding its appearance of a residential house and
the fact that in the upper floor, the Goswami Maharaj had
his living abode. In Mahalaxmi’s case (supra) this Court
again said:
"If a temple is proved. to have originated as a
public temple, nothing more is necessary to be
proved to show that it is a public temple but if a
temple is proved to have
713
originated as a private temple or its origin is
unknown or A lost in antiquity, then there must be
proof to show that it is being used as a public
temple. In such cases the true character of the
particular temple is decided on the basis of
various circumstances. In these cases the Courts
have to address themselves to various questions
such as:
(i) Is the temple built in such imposing manner
that it may prima facie appear to be a public
temple?
(ii) Are the members of the public entitled to
worship in that temple as of right?
(iii) Are the temple expenses met from the
contributions made by the public?
(iv) Whether the sevas and utsavas conducted in
the temple are those usually conducted in public
temples?
(v) Have the management as well as the devotees
been treating that temple as a public temple?"
The High Court has found in this case that the Haveli
was a public temple from the inception. It took into account
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
the fact that the haveli was built upon the land donated by
the Ruler of Junagad and for its upkeep sumptuous provisions
had been made by the State. The material on record justifies
the inference drawn by the High Court that when Goswami
Madhavraiji came to Junagad in response to the invitation
carrying his deity with him, he obviously did not come with
the mental frame of raising a haveli. That became possible
on account of the gifts made by the Ruler. Therefore, it
would be quite appropriate to affirm the finding of the High
Court that the haveli was built out of the grants made by
the Nawab and gifts and offerings made by the devotees
around that time.
Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants seriously
challenged the finding of the High Court that the haveli and
its properties constituted a public trust. We have given a
close look to the judgment and are of the view that the High
Court scrutinised the evidence-both documentary and oral-
keeping the proper perspective in view. The five way test
formulated by this Court in Mahalaxmi’s case (supra) and the
other relevant features referred to by Dr. B.K. Mukherjea in
the
714
Tagore Law Lectures on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable
Trusts for use as tests in determining the character of a
Hindu temple have been appropriately utilised by the High
Court while assessing the evidence. The large contributions
by the devotees evidenced by tablets placed on the walls of
the haveli, contributions by members of the public for its
repairs and expansion, the clear evidence regarding the
manner and scale in which festivities are celebrated at the
haveli, public grants of property made for the upkeep of the
institution, interference with the management of the haveli
by the State when a minor succeeded to trusteeship, the fact
that the members of the public had darshan freely and
without let or hindrance from the appellant and her
predecessors (the two instances of obstruction having
rightly been rejected by the High Court), placing of golaks
or hundies at different places within the haveli for
collection of contributions from the devotees, that the
State had either remitted the rent or adopted a quit rent
basis for the lands granted to the haveli, the fact that the
Junagad State levied and collected a cess for the
maintenance of the haveli, the other havelis or temples of
the Sampradaya under the control of the disputed haveli had
been accepted as public trusts and were registered as such
and the like were justifiedly utilised by the High Court as
features and materials for holding that the haveli was a
public trust. The High Court did take into account certain
other features from which support was sought by the
appellant for her stand that the haveli was a private trust
and did not come within the ambit of the Act. These are the
features like some of the grants being personal, the
Barkhali Abolition compensation not having been settled on
annuity basis, the upper portion of the haveli being used as
private residence of the Goswamiji, the mode of accounting,
the income being shown as personal in the returns under the
Income-tax Act and the like. We find that the High Court has
also appropriately taken note of the position that Goswami
Maharaj enjoyed among the devotees as their spiritual leader
and upon an assessment of the total evidence, it has reached
its conclusions. In a dispute of this type; a single or a
few features would not provide the conclusive basis for the
decision to be arrived at. On the other hand, the entire
material has to be scanned and the ultimate conclusion has
to rest on the sum total view. That is exactly what the High
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
Court has done.
The tests to be applied for deciding whether a temple
is public or private have been laid down in a catena of
cases by this Court and reference to them was made by
learned counsel for the parties in course of the hearing.
Since we are recording a judgment of affirmance
715
and the tests are well-known, we do not propose to advert to
them A now. In agreement with the High Court we hold that
the Haveli and the listed thirty-eight items of property
constitute a public trust under the Act and we also affirm
the finding that succession to trusteeship is by inheritance
without sanction of the State.
We have now to examine the correctness of the
conclusion reached by the High Court regarding the character
of the guruseva bhet and charanseva bhet. The High Court has
found that these also are a part of the source of income and
according to it, these constitute an important source of
income of the trust. It is the accepted situation that
Vallabha and his descendants enjoyed a special position in
the community of the devotees. In Tilkayat’s case. (supra)
this Court pointed out:
"It is significant that this denomination does not
recognise the existence of Sadhus or Swamis other
than the descendants of Vallabha . . . "
It is the practice of Goswami Maharaj to lead collective and
congregational prayers within the haveli and act as the
religious preceptor of the devotees. It is customary for the
devotee to make offerings at the feet of the Guru when he
meets the Maharaj. Such offerings are known as charanseva or
offerings at the feet of the Guru. It is also the accepted
position that the Guru moves about among the devotees living
in different areas coming within the territorial limits of
the haveli. It is equally customary for devotees who meet
the Guru while he is on the move outside the headquarters to
make similar offerings and these are known as Pradesh Seva.
The High Court has towards the end of its judgment adverted
to these gifts and said:
"In addition thereto. Gurubhet and Charanseva
bhets given to the concerned Maharaj also formed
substantial portion of the temple income. As the
evidence shows more than 70% of the temple income
springs from the source of pradesh seva and
guruseva bhet. We fully concur with the finding of
the Charity Commissioner in this aspect."
This finding of the High Court has been seriously assailed
by appellant’s learned counsel. Support has been sought from
the observations of the Constitution Bench judgment of this
Court in the Commissioner., Hindu Religious Endowments,
Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt, [ 1954] SCR 1005 to contend that
716
the bhets to the Guru are offerings to him as distinct from
offerings to the deity and in consideration of the feature
that the Vallabha Sampradayin Guru enjoys a special
position, these offerings must be held to be his and not of
the deity. The High Court has taken the view that once
Bramha-Sambadha is established, the Guru as also every
devotee in the cult loses his individuality and his very
existence (apart From the physical) merges with the Lord.
This has been an over stretching of the doctrine. Though we
do not intend to enter into the religious rites and
practices of the cult; nothing has been shown from the
record to justify the conclusion that the Guru is only a
conduit pipe between the devotee at one end and the Lord on
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
the other so as to lead to the conclusion that whatever is
offered at the feet of the Guru Belongs to the Lord.
In Shirur Mutt case (supra), this Court was considering
the vires of the provision in section 30 of the Madras Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 195l, which required
the personal gifts (Pada Kanikkais) to be duly accounted for
and to be spent for the Purpose of the Mutt. The gifts were
taken for granted to be personal and examination was not
undertaken to ascertain whether such gifts laid at the feet
of the Guru were personal or otherwise. Yet inferentially
support is available for the view that what is laid at the
feet of the J Guru is intended to be an offering to him and
not to the deity. There is a distinction between an offering
made before the deity or put into the Golak and put at the
feet of the Guru. In the earlier case, it is clearly a gift
to the deity while in the latter, in the absence of anything
more, it would be one to the Guru. The High Court, by
accepting the doctrine of Bramha Sambadha reached the
conclusion that such gifts were also to the deity. Though
the character of pada Kannikaris was not in issue before
this Court in Shirur Mutt case, the fact that the Court
proceeded on the footing that such gifts were personal is a
feature which cannot be overlooked. The preceptor has his
position and if he is not a conduit pipe in the sense stated
above, what is laid at his feet out of reverence by the
devotee must belong to him. We are not in a position to
uphold the finding of the High Court on this score and would
conclude that the proceeds of the Guruseva and Pradesh Seva
do not constitute part of the public trust. The High Court
has said that these two sources contribute seventy per cent
of the income of the trust. No argument was raised on this
aspect by either side. We, however, hope and trust that the
Goswami Maharaj or in his absence, his lawful heir
succeeding him, will continue in his discretion to allow the
trust of which he is the administrator to draw upon this
source as and when necessary.
717
The appeal is partly allowed. Parties are directed to
bear their respective costs throughout.
Ajanta Estate Agency, the appellants in the connected
appeal entered into an agreement with the trustee to
purchase certain properties during the pendency of the
litigation arising out of the enquiry under the Act. Once
the properties are held to belong to the public trust, the
appellants would have no claim to enforce and the appeal has
to fail. We dismiss the appeal without any direction for
costs in this Court
P.S.S. Appeal dismissed.
718