A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case of Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S. P. Sahi, reported in 1959 Supp (2) SCR 583, centers around the interpretation of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950. The appellant, a Mahant of the Salouna Asthal, challenged the application of the Act to what he claimed was a private religious institution. The Patna High Court ruled against him, asserting that the Act covered both private and public trusts. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the Act applied exclusively to public religious trusts. The judgment delved deep into the conceptual distinction in Hindu law between public and private religious endowments. The Court emphasized that in a private trust, beneficiaries are ascertained individuals, whereas in public trusts, the public or a fluctuating body benefits. The ruling highlighted the legislative intent behind trust laws and safeguarded the rights of private religious trusts from unwarranted state interference. This case reaffirmed the autonomy of private endowments under Hindu law and curbed the overreach of the Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts.

Keywords: Public Trusts, Private Religious Endowments, Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, Religious Trust Definition, Constitutional Rights

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji v. S. P. Sahi, Special Officer-in-Charge of the Hindu Religious Trusts & Others

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 343 of 1955

iii) Judgment Date:
April 15, 1959

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
S.R. Das (C.J.), S.K. Das, P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah (JJ.)

vi) Author:
Justice S.K. Das

vii) Citation:
1959 Supp (2) SCR 583

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 2(1), 4(5), 10(1), 32, 48, 59 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Hindu Law, Civil Law, Religious Trusts, Property Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute revolved around whether the Salouna Asthal, headed by Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji, constituted a religious trust within the ambit of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts had directed the appellant to submit accounts under Section 59 of the Act. The Mahant challenged this directive by asserting that the institution was private and thus outside the Act’s scope. The genesis of the case was rooted in historical religious endowments by Mahatma Mast Ramji, leading to successive claims and disputes over the asthal’s management and religious status. This led to a seminal legal examination of what constitutes a “religious trust” and whether the Act encroached upon constitutionally protected private rights.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Salouna Asthal was founded over two centuries ago by a Hindu saint, Mast Ramji, who also built a temple housing the deity Sri Thakur Lakshmi Narainji. After his death, succession passed through spiritual disciples. A notable development was the construction of a new temple in 1916 by Mahant Lakshmi Dasji, housing idols of Sri Ram and Sita. Subsequent succession disputes ensued. In 1941, the High Court of Patna ruled that the Salouna Asthal was a private endowment, thereby falling outside the purview of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920. Later, the Bihar Religious Trust Board invoked powers under the 1950 Act and demanded returns of income and expenditure. The appellant resisted this order, citing the prior declaration and asserting the private nature of the trust. His writ petition under Article 226 was dismissed by the High Court, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the Salouna Asthal is a religious trust within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950?

ii. Whether the Act applies to private religious trusts?

iii. Whether the directive of the Religious Trust Board violates fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for the appellant submitted that the Salouna Asthal was a private religious institution, and thus did not fall within the ambit of the Bihar Act. They relied on the earlier High Court decision in First Appeal No. 10 of 1941, which had explicitly held that the trust was private and not public. They argued that Section 2(1) of the Act, which defines “religious trust,” should be read in a restricted sense to include only public trusts, especially when other parts of the Act such as Section 4(5), exclude Section 92 of the CPC, which applies only to public trusts.

The appellant also invoked Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, arguing that enforcement of the Act against private trusts imposed unreasonable restrictions on their right to property and management. They claimed the Act violated constitutional safeguards by vesting sweeping control over private trust property in the State Board.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for the respondent State contended that the definition of “religious trust” in Section 2(1) was wide enough to include both public and private trusts. They emphasized that the intent of the legislature was to bring all religious endowments under regulatory scrutiny to prevent mismanagement, irrespective of their public or private nature. They also argued that the Board was not bound by the earlier declaration from the High Court in 1941 and maintained that only a declaration under the 1950 Act would be valid.

Further, they justified the imposition of regulatory control over private trusts under state interest and public welfare, citing the principle of parens patriae, and analogizing from English law where the Crown could act as visitor for trusts lacking heirs.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 2(1) – Definition of Religious Trust
ii. Section 4(5) – Exclusion of 1863 and 1908 Acts
iii. Section 32 – Scheme for Management
iv. Section 59 – Requirement to Furnish Returns
v. Article 226 – Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
vi. Article 19(1)(f) – Right to Property (prior to 44th Amendment)

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court held that private religious trusts do not fall within the scope of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950. The Court reasoned that the definition in Section 2(1), despite being broad, must be interpreted contextually. References to Sections 4(5) and 92 of the CPC—which apply only to public trusts—supported this restrictive interpretation. The Court emphasized the distinction in Hindu law between public and private religious endowments, citing Nabi Shirazi v. Province of Bengal (ILR 1 Cal 211) and legal principles from Mulla and Mukherjea on Hindu Law. It was also noted that the doctrine of cypres and requirement of two or more persons for actions under Section 32 were incompatible with private trusts.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i. The Court suggested that if the Act were interpreted to cover private trusts, serious constitutional questions would arise under Article 19(1)(f). However, as the Court held that the Act did not apply to private trusts, it did not rule on the constitutional validity.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Private religious trusts are outside the purview of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950.

• The definition clause must be read in context with other provisions.

• Section 4(5) and Section 92 of the CPC indicate the Act targets public trusts.

• Legislative interference in private endowments must be narrowly interpreted.

• The Court reaffirmed the prior declaration of the Salouna Asthal being private.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Nabi Shirazi v. Province of Bengal, ILR 1 Cal 211
ii. First Appeal No. 10 of 1941, Patna High Court
iii. Mahant Moti Das v. S.P. Sahi, [1959 Supp (2) SCR 563]
iv. Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920
v. Religious Endowments Act, 1863

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (Bihar I of 1951)
ii. Charitable Endowments Act, 1890
iii. Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920
iv. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 92
v. Constitution of India – Article 226, Article 19(1)(f)