A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This case deals with the legal question of whether the Shri Balaji Venkatesh temple at Nasik and its Sansthan constitute a public religious and charitable trust under Section 5(3) of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920. The primary contention arose between the descendants of Ganapati Maharaj, the original devotee who installed the idol, and other members of the Hindu public, regarding ownership and management rights over the properties and temple. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s and trial court’s concurrent findings that the Sansthan constituted a public trust and that the properties, including temple lands and cash grants, were not private or family-owned. The Court considered numerous historical documents, admissions from family members, government revenue records, and long-standing public worship practices to determine the nature of the endowment. It ruled that the deity was public, and the endowment was a charitable and religious trust. It also held that the plaintiff failed to rebut prior admissions and that the suit could not proceed without the deity as a party. The judgment offers critical insights into the legal principles governing public religious trusts and burden of proof.
Keywords: Public Religious Trust, Charitable and Religious Trusts Act 1920, Swayambhu Deity, Burden of Proof, Sansthan Property, Admission, Shebait, Devasthan Inam
B) CASE DETAILS
i) Judgement Cause Title:
Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and Others
ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 261 of 1955
iii) Judgement Date:
22nd September 1959
iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum:
S.R. Das, C.J., S.K. Das, and M. Hidayatullah, JJ.
vi) Author:
Justice M. Hidayatullah
vii) Citation:
1960(1) SCR 773
viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
-
Section 5(3), Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920
-
Order I Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure
-
Section 3, Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920
-
Act II of 1852 (Bombay Rent-Free Estates Act)
ix) Judgments overruled by the Case:
None explicitly overruled; Babu Bhagwan Din v. Gir Har Saroop was distinguished.
x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
-
Hindu Law
-
Constitutional Law
-
Property Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Religious Endowments Law
C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT
The case stems from a suit instituted by Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale, a direct descendant of Ganapati Maharaj, under Section 5(3) of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, for a declaration that the deity Shri Balaji Venkatesh and the Sansthan at Nasik did not constitute a public religious trust. The appellant claimed that the deity and the properties were private or family-owned. Respondents, representing Hindu public interest, contended otherwise and sought to establish the public character of the trust. The two lower courts found against the appellant, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.
Ganapati Maharaj, a spiritual devotee, found the idol in the Tambraparni river and brought it to his house. His descendants received land and gifts from rulers and public benefactors, leading to the creation of a massive temple structure over time. The main legal question revolved around whether these developments established a public trust or retained a private character.
D) FACTS OF THE CASE
The idol was discovered by Ganapati Maharaj in the Tambraparni river, who, after a divine vision, brought it to his home in Junnar and commenced worship. His son Timmayya moved the idol to Nasik and obtained land grants and cash allowances from several rulers, including the Peshwas, Holkars, and Scindias. One such plot of land was used to construct a vast temple with a Sabha Mandap capable of hosting over 600 people. The public had continuous and uninterrupted access to worship for over two centuries. The family of the appellant managed the temple and used a portion of the income for personal maintenance as per various internal agreements, such as the Tahanama (1774) and Tharav Yadi (1800).
The dispute escalated in 1942 when some members of the Hindu public applied to the District Court under Section 3 of the 1920 Act seeking details about the trust. This led to the current declaratory suit by the appellant under Section 5(3), seeking to establish private ownership over the deity and properties.
E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
i) Whether the Shri Balaji Venkatesh temple and Sansthan at Nasik constitute a public religious and charitable trust under the 1920 Act.
ii) Whether the properties are private/family property or public trust property.
iii) Whether the absence of the deity as a party renders the suit defective.
iv) Whether the burden of proof was wrongly placed upon the appellant.
v) Whether the inference drawn from historical documents was a question of law or fact.
F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:
-
The deity was a private/family deity and the properties were inherited, not public.
-
Courts had misconstrued key documents like the Tahanama, and wrongly inferred public trust elements.
-
Historical grants were made to individuals, not the deity, and family members enjoyed exclusive control.
-
The burden of proof to establish a public trust wrongly shifted to the appellant.
-
Public access to the temple does not prove legal dedication or public character of the trust.
-
No explicit dedication document was ever executed.
-
The deity being Swayambhu and movable also implied a private character.
G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:
-
Continuous public worship for over 200 years without exclusion proved public character.
-
Documents such as the 1774 Tahanama and 1800 Tharav Yadi clearly described the deity as owner and family as servants/shebaïts.
-
The appellant’s own publications and admissions, including the 1931 history book, affirmed public trust status.
-
Revenue records classified lands as Devasthan inams, not private holdings.
-
The vast structure of the temple, the Sabha Mandap, and public offerings indicated public religious endowment.
-
The Inam Commissioner’s decisions held in favor of public ownership.
-
Reliance placed on Babu Bhagwan Din v. Gir Har Saroop (1939) LR 67 IA 1 was misplaced as facts were distinguishable.
H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
i) Section 5(3), Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920
ii) Section 3, Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920
iii) Order I Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure
iv) Act II of 1852, Bombay Rent-Free Estates Act
I) JUDGEMENT
a. RATIO DECIDENDI
i) The deity and its properties constituted a public charitable and religious trust. The extensive public worship, historical documents, and long-standing revenue classifications proved this conclusively. The family merely managed the properties as Shebaits and were never the owners. The Court emphasized the value of admissions and public records, ruling that mistaken legal inferences cannot be reclassified as questions of law unless they involve misconstruction.
b. OBITER DICTA
i) The absence of a Kalas or dome, or the fact that the idol was movable, does not defeat its public character. Nor is consecration mandatory for a deity that is Swayambhu. The deity’s temporary visits outside the temple do not affect its public endowment status.
c. GUIDELINES
-
Public character of religious trusts can be inferred from long-standing public worship.
-
Admissions by predecessors have high evidentiary value unless withdrawn or disproved.
-
Revenue and Inam records are crucial evidence in trust disputes.
-
Misconstruction of documents must be proven to question concurrent findings.
-
Deity is a necessary party in suits involving its property; the absence is fatal to certain reliefs.
-
Burden of proof becomes academic where both sides lead evidence.
J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
The Supreme Court judgment in this case stands as a landmark ruling on the jurisprudence of public religious trusts in India. It underscores the necessity for courts to interpret historical documents, admissions, and revenue records holistically. The Court’s deference to concurrent findings and its precise delineation between questions of fact and law offer judicial clarity. Importantly, the ruling reaffirms the public’s role in maintaining and accessing religious endowments, especially when those institutions have existed for centuries. It also serves as a caution to litigants attempting to privatize public trust properties by manipulating historic documentation or withholding evidence.
K) REFERENCES
a. Important Cases Referred
i) Babu Bhagwan Din v. Gir Har Saroop, (1939) LR 67 IA 1
ii) Srinivasa Chariar v. Evalappa Mudaliar, (1922) LR 49 IA 237
iii) Arunachalam Chetty v. Venkatachalapathi Guru Swamigal, (1919) LR 46 IA 204
iv) Narayanan v. Hindu Religious Endowments Board
v) Hari Raghunath v. Apantji Bhikaji, ILR 44 Bom 466
vi) Prematha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick, LR 52 IA 245
vii) Ram Soondur Thakoor v. Taruck Chunder Turkoruttum, 19 WR 28
b. Important Statutes Referred
i) Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920
ii) Bombay Rent-Free Estates Act, 1852
iii) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (O.1 R.8)
