Harries, C J - (1.)This is a first appeal by the plaintiff from a decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, dismissing his suit for a declaration that certain properties were not held by him on a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature and were not governed by the provisions of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (Act 14 of 1920). The plaintiff is a mahant of an asthal situate in village Rampur Habib in the Monghyr district. According to the plaint, this asthal was founded a long time ago by Mahant Bankhandi Das. This mahant installed in the asthal an idol of Sri Thakur Sita Ramchandraji Maharaj. It is alleged that for his maintenance the mahant secured a jagir of 15 bighas from the landlords and later purchased 7 bighas of lakheraj lands. After his death Bankhandi Das was succeeded by his chela Mahant Jagannath Das who in turn, was succeeded by his chela Mahant Banwari Das. After the latter, his chela Basudeo Das became the mahant and these mahants had acquired various properties in their own name, which are set out in Schedule 1 of the plaint. Mahant Basudeo Das was succeeded by his chela Mahant Chintaman Das who acquired during his lifetime a large number of properties which are set out in Schedule 2 of the plaint. According to the plaintiff these properties were acquired by Chintaman Das out of his own personal properties. It is said that Chintaman Das before his death executed an arpannama dedicating all the properties acquired by him and his predecessors to the deity Sri Thakur Sita Ramchandraji Maharaj. But it is said that this arpannama was unauthorised and could not change in law the nature of the properties.
(2.)Mahant Chintaman Das was succeeded by Mahant Shyamsundar Das and after the latter's death in 1338 F. he was succeeded by the plaintiff, the present mahant. The properties acquired by Mahant Shyamsundar Das and the plaintiff are set out in Schedule 3 of the plaint. It is contended that these properties, like the properties in Schedules 1 and 2, are the personal properties of the mahant and are not trust properties. In the plaint it is stated that the defendants who are junior chelas of the late Mahant Chintaman Das, with a view to creating trouble, filed an application under Section 3 of Act 14 of 1920 before the learned District Judge of Monghyr calling upon the plaintiff to produce accounts alleging that the plaintiff was holding under a trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature. The District Judge by an order dated 26 November 1937, gave the plaintiff as provided by Section 5(3) of that Act, an opportunity to bring a suit within three months for a declaration that the Act did not apply to the properties. The present suit was filed for that purpose within the said period.
(3.)The defendants in their written statement admit that the asthal was founded by Bankhandi Das about two hundred years ago, and they allege that the zamindars being attracted by the saintly character of Bankhandi Das gave him some land free of rent for building a tliakurbari and other lands free of rent for the upkeep and maintenance of the idol to be installed therein for the benefit of the Hindus in general and those of the locality in particular. They denied that Bankhandi Das ever purchased any land and alleged on the contrary that all the land he held was gifted to him by the local zamindars. According to the defendants, the profits from these lands and the lands subsequently purchased by successive mahants went to meet the expenses of the worship of the idol and of the various festivals. As these profits were not sufficient, substantial help was given by the various chelas of the mahants and by the public who made generous offerings. It is Said that in course of time the mahants became wealthier and purchased the various properties set out in Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the plaint. These properties, though purchased in the names of the various mahants, are said to be properties belonging to the idol. The defendants deny that the arpannama executed by Mahant Chintaman Das was an unauthorised transaction but, on the contrary, contend that it was document making clear that the properties held by him were debottar properties and not the personal properties of the mahant. The defendants pleaded that all the properties set out in the schedules to the plaint are properties held by the mahant on a trust for public purposes and are properties to which Act 14 of 1920 applies. The defendants also took a plea that the decision of the learned District Judge, dated 26 November 1937, operated as res judicata, but this plea was abandoned in this Court.