Worship In Temple Or Over Deity, With Public As Beneficiaries, Establishes It As Public Trust: Patna HC Affirms Vishnupad Temple’s Public Status
The Patna High Court affirmed that the Vishnupad temple is a public trust under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 ( Act) and not a private temple of Gayawal Brahmins.
The Court in a second appeal filed challenging the judgment and decree of the First appellate court, holding that it was a public trust and not a private temple.
The Court emphasized that if the public exercises their right of worship as a matter of right in a temple or over a deity and they are the beneficiaries, it would be a public trust.
The Court noted that the First Appellate Court followed the procedures laid down in Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
The Bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra observed, “that if public at large exercise their right of worship as a matter of right in a temple or over a deity and they are the beneficiaries, it would be a public trust”.
Senior Advocate Kamal Nayan Chaubey appeared for the Appellant and Senior Advocate Ganpati Trivedi appeared for the Respondent.
A Second Appeal was filed challenging the judgment and decree. The appeal overturned an ex-parte order and decree, favouring the plaintiffs, where they sought a declaration that the Vishnupad temple was a private trust managed exclusively by Gayawal Brahmins. The First appellate court had held that it was a public trust and not a private temple. The dispute centred on whether the temple fell under the Act.
The Court framed the following questions:
“(i) Whether there is a manifest perversity in the judgment of the court of appeal below which has failed to follow the procedure of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure in deciding an appeal i.e. by failure to state (a) the points for the determination (b) the decision thereon and (c) the reasons for the decision?
(ii) Whether the order of this Court in M.A. No.261 of 1977 the question of order of District Judge, Gaya operating as res judicata did not arise, rather the order of the District Judge, Gaya would be deemed to have been merged in the order of this Court under the theory of merger of the order?
(iii) Whether the appellate court below erred in finding that Sri Vishnupad Temple was a public trust rather than holding that it was a private temple of Gayawal Brahmins?”
The Court observed that a first appeal functions as a continuation of the original court proceedings, allowing a thorough review of both factual and legal aspects decided by the Trial Court. The Bench emphasized the first appellate court's obligation to scrutinize all issues, apply a judicious approach, and articulate its findings with reasoning in compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
The Court observed the importance of clarity in a reasoned order, noting that cryptic and unexplained decisions may prejudice parties by withholding the rationale behind the verdict. Reference was made to the case of the Union of India & Ors. v Jai Prakash Singh & Ors. [(2007) 10 SCC 712].
In this case, the bench noted that the first appellate court diligently outlined the case's facts, the issues involved, and the trial court's decision. It then formulated points for determination in the appeal and proceeded to decide them, considering admitted facts, evidence, legal provisions, and arguments.
The Court emphasized that the first appellate court specifically addressed the plaintiffs' claims based on Vayu Puran and Agni Puran, asserting exclusive rights to the Vishnupad temple. However, the Court noted that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their exclusive right, title, and possession through credible evidence. Additionally, the Court observed the crucial issue of whether the Vishnupad temple falls under the purview of the Act and held that this matter requires careful consideration.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the first appellate court diligently provided reasons for its decision, referring to various authoritative sources while addressing the points for determination. The Court observed that no indication of perversity in the impugned judgment and affirmed that the first appellate court adhered to the procedural requirements outlined in Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC.
Regarding issue 2, the Court observed that the general principle of res judicata is applicable in diverse situations, yet none of these provisions prohibits an individual from having their claim adjudicated on its merits. The Bench observed that it was not deciding whether the Vishnupad temple trust was public or private, leaving this specific question open for determination by the competent court.
The Court reiterated that both the trial court and the first appellate court had the jurisdiction to decide whether the Vishnupad temple trust was private or public, deliberately leaving this crucial issue undecided in the final order. Concerning the issue of following the procedure under Section 29(2) of the Act, the Court held that the Division Bench of this Court conclusively decided and directed the Board to adhere to the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Act. This constitutes a final order, and the same issue cannot be re-litigated in a subsequent suit; thus, it operates as res judicata. Consequently, the substantial question of law no. (ii) has been definitively settled.
In conclusion, the Court noted that the central issue in both the lawsuit and the subsequent first appeal revolved around determining the nature of the Vishnupad temple in Gaya. While the trial court concluded that the temple was a private trust belonging to the Gayawal Pandas, the first appellate court asserted that it was a public trust. This second appeal before this court necessitates an examination of the first appellate court's finding to ascertain its viability in the given circumstances.
Furthermore, the Court observed several undisputed facts, including the widespread belief among Hindus, the privileges of Gayawal Brahmans, and the public's participation in worship. Based on these facts and legal precedent, the court affirmed the first appellate court's conclusion that the Vishnupad temple is a religious public trust.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal and upheld the judgment and decree of the first appellate court.
Cause Title: Vishnupad Bhagwan v Bihar State Board of Religious Trust
Appearance:
Appellant: Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, Ray Saurabh Nath, Shalini Sinha, Manjari Nath, Ritu Priyadarshini, Dineshwar Pandey, Prashant Kumar, Shashank Shekhar Dubey, Kumar Kartikeyan and Anil Singh, Advocates.
Respondent: Mohit Kumar, Aishwariya Shree and Shekhar Singh, Advocates.
