Bharucha, J. - (1.) The order under appeal was passed by a learned single Judge of the High Court at Patna. Thereby the appeal of the present appellants against the order and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur in a suit filed by the respondent against them was dismissed.
(2.) The suit related to two temples one in the village Ramchaura and the other in the village of Majhauli, both in the district of Muzaffarpur. By a Sanad given in the year 1177 Fasli, one Madhodas alias Mohandas was granted 55 bighas of land in Ramchaura by Syed Suleman Raja Khan. This was done because Madhodas was a pious and religious man. Upon this land Madhodas constructed a temple and installed the deities of Ram Jankiji and Charan Paduka. He left two chelas, one of whom was Garibdas. Garibdas went to the village of Khalishpur and installed the deities of Ramjankijee on 7 bighas of fakirana land granted by Babus of that village. The other chela, Hanumandas, who remained at Ramchaura, acquired lands by purchase in Majhauli and thereon constructed a temple where the deities of Ramjankijee and Laxmi Narayanjee were installed. After the death of Garibdas, the Khalispur properties also came to be in possession of Hanumandas. Hanumandas was succeeded by Gangaramdas and he, in his turn, by Hareram, Harbhajandass, Harakh Narain and Raghubardas. Raghubardas, upon the abolition of zamindari in 1951 made returns and claimed an annuity on the basis that the properties were the properties of a, public temple. He also submitted returns, accounts and expenditure to the appellants on the basis that the temples were public temples. These returns were made from 1951 till 1958-59, when Raghubardas died. The respondent was a nephew and a chela of Raghubardas and he came into possession of the properties upon the death of Raghubardas. On 29th September, 1961, the respondent filed a suit against the appellants, in the Court of the subordinate Judge at Muzaffarpur averring that the act of Raguhbardas of filing an application in the Land Reforms Office claiming annunity, treating properties as those of public religious trust and giving an account of income and expenditure to the appellants upon that basis " was under mistaken view of law and fact and the said actions are not binding on the plaintiff", the same had been done "under misapprehension of fact and law". The plaint prayed for a declaration "that the properties were secular properties plaintiff or at best private trust properties and not public trust properties and the defendant cannot claim any supervision overacts and deed of palintiff". The appellants, in defence maintained that the temples and the properties attached thereto were public religious trust properties and the respondent was liable to render accounts to the appellants and remained under their control. Issues were framed and evidence was led. The trial Court was of the view that the grant by Syed Suleman Raja Khan to Mohandas of the land of Ram-chaura did not appear to be a grant to the deity " and in fact it could not have been granted to a Hindu deity by a Mohamaden", There was no evidence that the public had anything to do with the construction of the temple or its management. In ragard to the temple at Majhauli, the trial Court observed that if the properties had been dedicated to the deities, then the revenue records would have stood in their names and not in the name of Raghubardas. The trial Court referred to a deed of endowment made in 1916 by one Hulsabati Devi. She had dedicated certain properties to Laxmi Narainjee in the temple at Majhauli. This, in the opinion of the trial Court, was merely an accretion to the asthal and it could not be said that because some additional grant had been made by a pious lady to the deities in the temple, the temple became a public trust. The trial Court relied upon the evidence, as it read it, of the respondent that Raghubardas had been ill when he made the returns aforementioned to the appellants and "under mistaken view of fact and wrong legal advice that though it was not public trust ......". Admissions, the trial Court said, could be shown to be wrong and placed reliance against on the fact that the grant had been given by a Mohamaden to a Hindu to hold that the admission was shown to be wrong. Reference was then made to certain documents which showed that the mahanths had executed sale deeds and given rent receipts regarding the properties in their own names. The oral evidence, according to the trial Court, was not of much importance:the mere fact that Members of the public were allowed to enter the temples for darshan, to make offerings and to attend functions held therein did not justify the inference that they were public temples for it had been said that it would not, in general be consonant with Hindu sentiment or practice that worshipers should be turned away. In the result, the suit was decreed.
(3.) In the appeal before the High Court the respondent did not appear. The High Court was, however, not persuaded to take a view different from that of the trial Court.;