Commissioner for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore v. Ratnavarma HeggaDe (Deceased) by His L.Rs.

889 COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE A ENDOWMENTS, MYSORE _v._ RATNAVARMA HEGGADE (DECEASED) BY HIS L.RS. ## ' -\ _October_ 20, 1976 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] Hin~u _Law-Religious_ _Endowment-Hindu_ _temple forming part_ _of_ _a Jain_ _Instituion-When_ _niay be treated_ _as_ _a Hindu religious endowment._ Sectio1i 9(12) of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 defines 'temple' as a place, by whatever designation known, used as a pla~e cf public worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by the Hindu community, or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship. Section 9(11) provides that all property belonging to, or· given or endowed for the support of a temple or for the performance of any service or charity connected with the temple will constitute its endowment, including the premises of the temple. Section 2 provides that the Act applies to all Hindu _public_ religious endowments. The Section, the Explamation to the section, and s. 3 (b) show that Hindu public religions endowments' do not include private endowments and Jain religious endowments. Dharmasthal, in which the temple in dispute was situate has a number of institutions which were under the management of a person known as _Heggade,_ who was a Jain. The Religious Endowments Board, after an enquiry, held that the Act applied to the temple. On application made under s. 84(2), the District Judge held that it was a private temple, and that, therefore, the Act did not apply to it. On appeal, the High Court did not consider whether it was a private temple, but held that the temple was an adjunct to the composite institution of Dharmasthal, that, according to the customs and usages of the institution, the temple could not be separated from the rest of the institutions, that Dharmasthal was both a religious and charitable institution, that the deity in the temple was worshipped both by the Hindus and the Jains in accordance with their respective faiths, that the deity was neither an exclusively Hindu deity nor an exclusively Jain deity, that the institution of Dharmasthal was founded by a Jain, that its administration remained exclusively Jain since its inception, that it could not be inferred that there _was:_ an implied dedication to the Hmdus exclusively, and, that therefore the temple' was not a temple as defined in the Act, and that the Act did not apply to it. The High Court also held that its property was also an adjunct to the composite institution consisting of Hindu Gods, Jain Gods and Daivas, worshipped by Hindus and Jains. Dismissing the '.i12Peal by special leave to this Court, HELD : (Per A. N. Ray, C.J., and P. N. Shinghal, J) ( 1) Section 9 ( 12) of the Act only requires that the temple should be dedicated for public religous. worship, as of right by Hindus, but it would not detract from its character of a temple as such if Jains also worship there. The provisions of the Act will however not be attracted to it in the absence of any evidence to prove the existence of an endowment for it, as the Act applies only to Hindu public religious endowments. [899 H, 900 A] (2) The evidence in the case shows that the institution of Dbarmastbal was originally a Jain religious and charitable institution to which property was endowed by the ancestors of the present Heggade who was himself a Jain. It was that endowment which spread and gained more and more importance ever the years because of the offerings made largely by Hindu and. Jain devote~s and worshirqiers. A lingam was installed in th.e ~mple by a Hu;idu Sanyas1 only in the 16th century; but, it bas not been estabhshed that there 1s any_ endowment which could be said to belong exclusively to the temple. Even 1f any such B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H 890 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. endowment was made by some one in the name of the temple it was taken to :..e an endowment for the entire institution known as Dharmasthal and was treated as such. The temple cannot therefore be said to be a Hindu relgiom endowment within the meanin.g of s. 2 and the provisions of the Act are not applio- · able to it. f896 F-H; 897 Al . (3) The evidence also shows that the temple is part and parcel of the composite institution known as Dharmasthal and is so inseparably connected with it that it is its integral part, and it cannot therefore be held to be an endowment within the meaning of s. 9 ( 11). It has not been proved that any property belongs to the temple or has been given or endowed for its support or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith, or that it has any such premises of its own as could be said to form its own endowmeat. The mere installation of the idol in the temple could not be said to bring into exis tence any such property as could be sncid to belong to the deity or given or endowed for the support of its temple or for the .performance of any service or charity connected therewith. The temple does not have even _t'_ separate . _prakaram._ The shrine of the adjacent shrine is in close proximity of the temple and within the same _prakaram._ The existence of other shrines of Jain Daivas in the same _prakaram_ as the temple, therefore, shows that this temple cannot even claim to have any exclusive premises of its own so as to comtitute an endowment within the meaning of s. 9(11) of the Act. [897 A, FJ ( 4) In· a given case, it may be difficult _to!_ prove the original dedication because of the lapse of considerable time and its user by Hindus as of right may be enough to prove an initial dedication. But, in the present case, it would not be possible to conclude that there was any such dedication because there is nothing to show how the Hindu Sanyasi, who installed the lingam in the temple in the 16th century, could be said to be a donor when the property did not belong to him. [900 F-G] (5) The facts that the temple was not shown to be a Jain endowment. and that it possesses the characteristics of a Hindu temple will not make any differ ence because, there is no evidence to show that there is any endowment to the temple, as such, a:nd the temple is a pa1t and parcel of Dharmasthal. [900 A.Bl _Per_ Beg, J. (1) In order to decide a dispute under s. 84(1)(a) it is necessary to decide whether a particular place is a temple as contemplated by the Act. But, that is not enough for the decison of the whole issue to be decided. For that purpose attention has also to be directed towards deciding the question whether the institution to be considered is a temple and nothing more. If the temple, as a place of worship, is an integral part of an institution so that it is not separable as an institution in itself, the mere fact that there is a temple as defined by the Act, where Hindu members of the public worship as a matter of right, will not do. In such a case, the institution is not the temple, although a temple can by itself, be an institution. There is thus a distincttion between the meanings of 'temple' merely as a place of worship as defined in s. 9(12) and a 'temple' as an institution. It is therefore, necessary to consider the history, fhe beliefs underlying at the inception and sought to be propagated the forms of worshop meant to be kept altve, the prevalent customs and pracvces, the exact nature and process of the endowments connected with the institution, the established rules for its management, the objects _t9_ be carried out by those in charge of the· endowment, and whether all these taken together justify the inference that a particular temple, as defined by the Act, is also a separate or separable institution by itself, or is just an integral and organically inseparable part of an institution or an organisation outside the Act, [903 A-B. 906E, H-907 A-Cl (2) A consideration of the properly which belongs to or is endowed for the support of temples or for performance of any service or charity conl'!ected therewith including the premises of temples may also become necessary so as to determine the character of an emlnwment as a part of the institution and the process by which it took place. [907 F-G] (3) The orfoin and process of dedication is not always found embodied in a document. Where the dedication itself is evidenced by a document. its objects, \ _f-_ COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS _v._ RATNAVARMA _(Shinghal,_ J.) 891 such as they may be, can be determined by interpreting the document. There A are, however, many cases in which dedication or endowment of property for a ,:Particular purposes has to be inferred from immemorial or long user of a property in a particular manner or from the conduct of a party. Neither a documeut nor express words are essential for a dedication for a religiuus or public purpose in our country. Although religous ceremonies of _Sankalpa_ and Samarpan~n are relevant for proving a dedication, yet, they are not indispensable. [907 G-H; 908 A-BJ ' _.(_ _Bholanath Nandi_ v. _Midnapora Zamindary Co. Ltd._ 31 I.A. 75, _Lakslzmidlzar_ B _Misra_ _&_ _Ors._ v. _Rangalal_ _&_ _Ors._ AIR 1950 PC 56, _Manohar Gandhi_ v. _Lakh-_ _miram,_ ILR 12 Born. 247 @ 263, _Deoki Nandan_ v. _Murlidhar,_ [1956J S.C.R. 756 and _Puajri Lakshmana Goundan_ v. _Subramaniya_ 29 C.W.N. 112 (P.C.) referred to. _(_ 4 l •An that s. 9(12) requires is that the place should be a place of worship _either dedicated_ for the benefit of _or used as_ _of_ _ri/d1t_ by the Hindu community or a section thereof as a place of religious worship. The word 'exclusively' is :n0t there e>t all so as to justify any exclusion of a place of worship from the definition of a temple on the ground that Jains worship together with Hindus of ·other sects. But, the issue to be decided is whether the 'institution' is a temple as defiued in the Act. It is not whether a particular place is a temple, in the ·sense that it is set apart for worship by the Hindu public in general or a section -of it, but it is whether an institution itself is a temple as defined by the Act. [905; D-G, 906 F-H, 907 A-DJ. . c _.(_ \ (5) In the present case, the findings of the High Court show that the insti- D tution or organisation of which the temple is an inseparable part, is predominantly Jain in character. In view of the well established doctrine of implied endowment of property, by its long user for a particular religious or public purpose, based on a presumed consent, it could be said that the temple had become a separate; institution with an endowment of its own consisting at least of the land over which the temple had been built, the building and the idol installed with free access to it by the Hindu public in general which made offerings even though fains also worship there. But, in view of the general rule of practice under Art. 136 of the Constituion that this Court does not disturb findings E of the final court of fact where two views are possible, this Court would not differ from the conclusion reached by the High Court that the temple was not a separate institution. On such a finding it would be exempt from the operation of the Act by reason of the Explanation to s. 2 excluding Jain religious endowments from the benefits of the Act. [905 E-H, 907 D-FJ (6) In the present case, neither the District Judge nor the High Court had given any findings whether any endowment whatsoever of the temple existed. The extent of property covered by an endowment was also not really investigat- F ed as no issue was framed on it. At least the structure of the temple with the idol installed and the ground upon which the temple stands must be deemed to be dedicated even t~ough these may not for purposes of management, form separable units. When a religious institution becomes a means of obtaining money or material J:>enefits, in the form of offerings or donations or gifts, as it generally does, from members of the pubic, a danger of its mis11se can only be effectively averted by appropriate supervision. The powers of the Government, under the relevant Act to extend the provisions of the Act to Jain public religious G institutions which are Tiot affec:c:l by the dispute brought before the Court, are however, adequate to deal with such situation. [912 A-H, 913A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 111 of 1971. (Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 30-8-1968 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 165/57) _Sachin Chaudhuri_ and _Narayana Nettar,_ for the Appellant. H _'A._ _K. Sen, K. N. Bhatt_ and _K._ _R. D. Karanath,_ for the Respondent through L.Rs. 7 -1338SCI/76 892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. A The Judgment of A. N. Ray, C.J. and P. N. Shinghal, J. was deli vered by Shingha~, J. M. H. Beg, J. gave a separate Opinion. B c D E F SHINGHAL, J. -This appeal by special leave arises out of the judgment of the High Court of Mysore dated Au:>ust 30, 1968, upholding the order of District Judge, South Kanara, J'.1ted Novcmher 9, 1956. By that order the District Judge set aside the decision of the Board of Commissioners for Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras hereinafter referred to as the Board, that the institution known as Srl Manjunatha temple at Dharmasthal, Puttur Taluk, South Kanara district, was a 'temple' as defined in clause ( 12) of section 9 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1926 (Madras Act II _oi_ 1927), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Comrni~sionef under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act feels aggrieved because the impugned judgment has the effect of taking the temple out of the control provided by the Act. The respondett in this appeal was the "supplemental" petitioner before the District Judge and was brought on record on the death of Manjayya Heggade who was the original petitioner in the petition under sub-section (2) of section 84 of the Act. The controversy relates to the Manjunatha temple, in Dharmasthal, which is now the name of a village in Belthangady taluk of South Kanara district of Tamil Nadu. The original name of the village was Mallarmadi. The locality in which the temple is situat•xl was called Kukya Kudume, but it came to be known as Dharmasthal after the visit of Sri Vadiraja Swamiar of Sode Mutt, Udipi, in the 16th century, to which reference will be made in a while. It is not in dispute that, even according to the Heggade, Dharmasthal has a number of institutions including the following main institutions,1. Nelleyadi Beedu, 2. Chandranatha Basthi, 3. Manjunatha temple, 4. Ammanvaru temple, and 5. Heggadeship. These institutions have been shown in exhibit A 59 which is said to be a rough sketch of the Dharmasthal. It is also not in dispute before us that "Daivas" were first established in Nelleyadi Beedu, by an G ancestor of Heggade who was a Jain, and .were . ~orshipped t~er~. Heggade began to give charity to persons of all reh~1~m~, .and the mst1tution became well known and travellers began to v1s1t 1t m large numbers. It is the common case of the parties that Sri Vadiraja Swamiar of Sode Mutt, Udipi, who was a Sanyasi, happened to p~ss that way and was invited by Heggade to stay there. The Swam1ar however refused to accept food there on the ground that it was "Bhuta Kshetra". H . Heggade felt very sorry as the great Sanyasi was s~arving in ~is house. It is said that Heggade thereupon arranged to mstal the idol of Sri Manjunatha in the "garbagriha." The Swamiar was appeased and. performed the first "pooja" in that temple, which thereafter came to ##### ..... ' COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS _v._ RATNAVARMA _(Shinghal,_ _J.)_ 893 be known as Dharmasthal. This is said to have happened in the sixteenth century and is, at any rate, said to be the origin of the Manjunatha temple in the Dharmasthal campus. The Board started proceedings under section 84(1) of the Act to decide whether Sri Manjunatha temple was a temple as defined in olause (2) of section 9 of the Act. Heggade urged before the Boar~, _ _inter alia,_ that all the institutions in Dharmasthal formed a single umt representing a private institution, that it had been founded by his ancestors on their own private land, that there was no dedication to the Hindus and they could not claim any right of worship, that Dharmasthal was Jain in character, that it was a charitable but not a religi~us institution, that his status was not akiri to that of a mere trustee and that "Heggadeship" was intimately and insep..irately connected with the Dharmasthal institution and Manjunatha temple. The.Board made an enquiry and reached the conclusion that Marijunatha temple was a separate entity and was the most importan! institution and that it was not the private property of the Heggade. It also held that it was not a Jain institution, but was a Hindu temple, and that it· was a religious and not merely a charitable institution fof its charity was connected with the temple. The Board also held that the public had used the temple freely ever since its foundation. It accordingly decided that Man_iunatha was a temple as defined in the Act even though its trusteeship vested in Heggades who were fains. As has been stated, an application was made by Manjayya Hegde to the District Judge,-under sub-section (2) of section 84 of the Act for setting aside the Board's decision. It was specifically pleaded in that application that the entire institution known as Dharmasthal ·was a "composite" institution and that his ancestors a·lways claimed that the Manjunatha Devaru, its properties and deities belonged to them personally and that its 'patta' stood in- their names from time immemorial. On that basis, it was pleaded further that as the propertioo were outside the scope of the enquiry under section 84 of the Act, the Act "did not apply and the Board had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry under section 84." A counter•affidavit was filed on behalf of th:e Board in which it was pleaded that Manjunatha temple of Dharmasthal was "an independent entity· being a separate temple, owning its own property and having separate income." It· was pleaded further that there were properties in the name of the deity of the Manjunatha in Mysore State -and other places. The District Judge did not frame any·issued but formulated some· points for determination including the points whether Manjunatha Devaru was only a part of the institution known as Dhannasthal, and nof a separate institution in itself, ·and whether the provisions of the Act did nof apply to it ? He recorded the evidence and held that Manjunatha temple was one of the 3 or 4 shrines maintained from the income of the institution known as Dharmasthal, Heggade was a component part of the institution. the temple stood on the private land' of Heggade. the Manjimatha shririe was a Hindu institution but h -was so mixed up and connected with other Jain institutions· that it was practically impossible to separate it, and that Dharmasthal was a happy blending of charity and religion. r_he District Judge held further that the Manjunatha shrine was the private A B c D E F G A B c D E G H 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. temple of the Heggade, it had not been dedicated to the Hindu public, and it ~as not used by the _Public as of right. The District Judge did not decide whether the shnne of Ammanvaru and other deities was a Jain institution. He accordingly held that though the Manjunatha shrine may be a Hindu shrine, it was private property of the Heggade and the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it. The District Judge accordingly set aside the order of the Board dated March 9, 1949. The Commissioner filed an appeal to the High Court against that judgment of the District Judge dated November 9, 1956. One of the main questions presented for determination before the High Court was whether "all the institutions" of Dharmasthal formed a single com{1osite institution. It was not in dispute before the High Court that, apart from the question of Manjunatha temple being an adjunct to the composite Dharmasthal institution, the temple was not an institution at all~ Even the Heggade did not deny the existence of Manjunatha temple as· an institution and took the specific plea in his affidavit dated July 22, 1949 that the Manjunatha Deity "is a private institution belonging to the Heggade." The High Court examined the "crucial question" whether Manjunatha was a temple within the definition of the Act and whether it was a "Religious Endowment" under section 9 ( 11). It held that the Manjunatha temple was an adjunct to the composite institution of Dharmasthal and according to the customs and usages of the institution that temple could not be separated from the rest of the institution, that Dharmasthal was both a religious and charitable institution, that Manjunatha was a deity worshipped both by the Hindus and the Jains in accordance with their respective faiths and that it was neither an exclusively Hindu deity nm an exclusively Jain deity. The High Court referred to the pleadings and the evidence and held that the institution was founded by a Jain, its administration remained exclusively Jain since its inception, and that as Jains also worshipped along with Hindus, it could not be inferred that there was an implied de<lication to the Hindus exclusively. The High Court thus hcld that the temple was not a temple as defined in the Act, and it was therefore not necessary to examine the question whether it was a private temple of the Heggade. In the result, the High Court took the view that the Act did not apply to the institution and the Board had no jurisdiction over it. It therefore dismissed the appeal with costs. The Commissioner has obtained special leave, and this is how the appeal has come up here for consideration. As the controversy in this case relates to the applicability of the Act to the Manjunatha temple, it will be convenient to examine its relevant provisions. The preamble of the Act states, _inter_ _alia,_ that it is meant to provide for the better administration and governance of "certain Hindu religious endowments" de~cribed in. it. ~~ction 2 makes it, clear. that the Act applies "to all Hmdu pubhc rehg10us endowments'. Pnvate religious endowments are therefore outside its scope. Then there is an Explanation to the following effect, ### ' COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS _v._ RATNAVARMA _(Shinghal,_ _!.)_ 895 "Explanation,-for the purpose of this Act, Hindu A public religious endowments do not include Jain religious endowments." The effect of the section therefore is to exclude not only private religious _endowments, but also Jain religious endowments and it is around the provisions of section 2 that the controversy in this case has centred. The exclusion of Jain religious endowments has been emphasised by B section 3 (b) which empowers the Local Government to remove the exclusion and extend the provisions of the Act, and the Rules framed theretmder, to Jain religious endowments, subject to such restrictions and modifications as may be considered proper. As no such extension has been notified, the Act does not cover Jain religious endowments. It is coifined to Hindu religious "endowments" and will not be applicable where there is no such endowment at all. c The expression "Religious endowment" or "Endowment" has been defined in clause (ii) of section 9 as follows, "( 11) 'Religious endowment' or 'Endowment' means all property belonging to, or given or endowed for the support of maths or temples or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of maths or temples but does not inolude gifts of property made as personal gifts or offerings to the head of a math or to the archaka or other employee of a temple." It follows that "all property" belonging to, or given or endowed for the support of a temple or for the performance of any service or charity connected with the temple will constitute its endowment, including the premises of the temple. It would therefore be necessary to examine whether there is evidence to prove any such endowment in· respe1:t of Sri Manjunatha temple. In this connection it will be necessary to examine which property, if any, was endowed to the temple, and by whom, and which, if any, could be said to be the premises of the temple to the exclusion of all other temples ? The expression "Temple" has been defined by clause (12) of section 9 in these terms, " (l2) 'Temple' me:ans a place, by whatever designation known, used .as a place of public worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community, or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship." The definition thus emphasises that only those temples will fa11 within the purview of the Act which are places of "public religious worship" and are "dedicated" to, or for the benefit of, or are used "as of right" by the Hindu community. It may be mentioned in this connection that, as has been stated, the District Judge has held that although the Manjunatha temple may be a Hindu temple, it is the private temple of the Heggade and is not a temple expressly dedicated to Hindus or a temple which could be D F G H ..... __ -\_ l -\ A B c D E G H 896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. said to. have been used or resorted to by the Hindu public as of right. The I-l_1gh ~ourt has, on appeal, held on the other hand, that Manju na~ha 1s n~1t~er an exclusively Hindu deity nor an exclusively Jain deity and that 1t 1s not therefore a temple as defined in the Act. It has th~refore not examined the other question whether it is a public or a pnvate temple., As regards the property of the temple, the High Court has· h~ld that 1t is .an "adjunct" to the composite institution consisting of. Hmdu and Jam Gods and Daivas worshipped by Hindus and Jams. Counsel for the parties have argued at length on the questions whether Manjunatha temple is an exclusively Hindu temple and whe .. ther it is a place of public religious worship dedicated to ~r used as of right by the Hindu community as a place of religious worship. There is considerable evidence for deciding these questions, but even if it were assumed that the answer to these questions should be in the affirmative, that would not be decisive of the controversy, for the other question would still remain whether it is an "endowment" ? It will be recalled that by virtue of section 2, the Act applies only to Hindu public religious "endowments." The definition of "Religious endowment" and "Endowment" in clause ( 11) of section is common. Accordingly, the questions which arise for consideration in this connection are whether the temple has property belonging to, or given or endowed for its support or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith. It has not been disputed before us, and is in fact beyond controversy, that there is considerable movable and immovable property of the Dharmasthal as a whole i.e. the entire complex or campus consisting of Nclleyadi Beedu, Chandranath Basthi, Manjunatha temple, Ammanvam temple and the Heggadeship. But the question is whether there is any such property exclusively of the Manjunatha temple so as to constitute a Hindu religious endowment for purposes of section 2 of the Act ? It wiU be recalled that it is not in dispute here that it were the "Daivas" who were first established in Nelleyadi Beedu and were worshipped there by an ancestor of Heggade who was a Jain. The High Court has in fact found that it has been clearly c:stablished by the evidence on the record that the institution was founded by a Jain and that ever since its inception its administration has remained in the hands of a Jain, namely, the Heggade. So whel'I. Vadiraja Swamiar of Sode Mutt, Udipi, came there as mentioned earlier, there was only worship of Jain "Daivas" and of "no God". This is to be found in the report (Ex. A 108) of T. Narayan Nambiyar in the matter of the Manjunatha temple, which was taken in evidence and has been relied upon by the High Court. It was at the instance of the Swamiar that the idol of Manjunatha was brought and installed in the "garbagriha" and it was he who performed the first 'pooja'. It was therefore the Swamiar who was responsible for the installation of the Manj.unatha idol, which was a 'lingam', in a campus where the~e were shrmes of Devas like Nelleyadi Beedu, the Chandranatha Basth1 and several other buildings. It could not therefore be said that the mere installation of the idol of Manjunatha brought into existence any such property as I _!-_ **-y** COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS v. RATNAVARMA _(Shinghal,_ J.) 89 7 _.could_ be said to belong to that deity or given or endowed for the **A** support of its temple or for the performance of any service or charity .connected therewith. \ There is, on the other hand, evidence to show that all the building~ and institutions of the Dharmasthal, which was the composite name of the entire campus or complex consisting of the buildings mentioned in plan Ex. A 59, were situated in the land belonging to the Heggade, .and of which he held a 'patta'. This is evident from Ex. A 103 which is a certified copy of the statement of Kumara Heggade dated July 31, 1820,• which appears to have been read in evidence with the consent of the parties. To the same effect is the statement of U. Seetharamayya dated October 12, 1954 who was acquainted .with Dharmasth&l since 1908. ~s it is, the Manjunatha temple does not have even a separate "prakaram''. The shrine of Ammanvaru is in close proximity of the Manjunatha temple and within the same "prakaram''. It has not been disputed before us that, as has been stated by U. Seetharamayya, P.W. 2, its important deities are Kalarahu, Kalarhayi, Kumaraswami and Kanya Kumari some of which, at any rate, are the same as the Jain deities worshipped in Nelleyadi Beedu and Badinade both of which are admittedly Jain institutions. Moreover, Kanya Kumari in Ammanvaru shrine cannot be said to be Parvati, the consort of Shiva, for M. Govinda Pai R.W. 12, who claims to have studied Hindu and Jain religions and was examined on behalf of the Board, hag stated that Parvati and Kanya Kumari are "not identical". The shrine of Annappa Daiva is also situated within the common "prakaram". The existence of the shrines of Ammanvaru and Annappa Daiva in the same "prakaram" as the Manjunatha temple therefore shows that Manjunatha temple cannot even claim to have any exclusive premises of its own so as to constitute an endowment within the meaning of .clause **(11)** of section 9 of **the** **Act.** The High Court has found it as a iact that the shrine of Manjunatha is an "adjunct" to the composite institution of Dha1J11asthal and according to the customs and usages of the said institution, the shrine of Sri Manjunatha cannot be separated from the rest. In arriving at **B** **c** **D** **E** this condusion the High Court has taken into consideration those facts **F** which have been established by the evidence on the record. It will be sufficient to make a brief reference to the following 14 facts which have been mentioned by the High Court, (i) All the sluines in Dharmasthal were founded by the Heggade who was a Jain. (ii) All the shrines are situated in close proximity on "wrag" lands **G** of Which the 'patta' is in the name of Heggade. (iii) The rituals of all the shrines are interconnected. (iv) All places of worship participate in the installation of the 'Heggade (Exs. A 58 and A 108). (v) The 'pooja' is reciprocal e.g. whenever there is an important **H** ceremony in Manjunatha shrine, special 'pooja' has to be performed in Chandranatha Basthi which is a Jain institution (Ex. A 108). A B c D E F G H 898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. (vi) All 'prasadam' is normally given only from Ammanvaru shrine and not (rom Manjunatha temple, (P. Ws. 3, 4 and 5). (vii) The festivals, including that relating to "makara shankranti",. of all the shrines, are comrrion (P.W.2 and exhibits A 69 and A 70). (viii) All offerings are made and received for the entire institution and not for any particular deity (Exs. A 69, A 70 and A 108), and the public do not make any distinction in making the offerings and whatever is given is for Dharmasthal as a whole (Ex. A 108). (ix) On Heggade's death, 'pooja' is stopped in all institutions until purification (Ex. A 108). (x) "Hoilus" or complaints are made to Dhannastlial as a whole and 'prasadam' is given to the complaiqants from Ammanvar•1 shrine _(Ex._ A 72). (xi) Chandranatha Basthi, which is a Jain institution,· is closely interlinked with all the other institutions in Dharmasthal. (xii) The paraphernalia of "Daivas" (who are Jain deities) is kept in Manjunatha and Ammanvaru shrines (Ex. A 108). (xiii) There is extraordinary unity of interest between the Heggade and Dharmasthal (Exs. A 107 and A 103) and no distinction is made between the office of Heggade and the deities (Ex. A 104). (xiv) The deities which had been installed before the installation of the 'lingam' in the Manjunatha temple continued to enjoy their previous importance (Ex. A 105) and Dharmasthal could not be said to have been dedicated to Man junatha but to the earlier deities. To the above may be added the following further facts,(i) The entire income of all the institutions constitutes one common fund from which the expenses of all the shrines and the Heggade are met (Report Ex. B 2 of R.W. 3). (ii) The vast charity which is undertaken was in existence even before the installation of the 'lingam' in Manjunatha shrine (P.W. 3). (iii) While the 'lingam' was installed in Manjunatha temple by Vadiraja Swamiar of Sode Mutt, Udipi, as an exclusively Hitidu God, in its present "garbagriha" which exclusively contains that 'lingam' and has no non-Hindu God, the Jain Daivas have continued to be worshipped side by side, in the adjacent Ammanvaru shrine. Even in the presence of the Swamiar, the Heggade was prese9t at the time of worship and offered 'Kanikam' (R.W. 9). Whosoever went to Dharmasthal, whether a Hindu or a Jain worshipped Manjunatha and the other deities and Daivas alike (Ex. A 108). (iv) It may be that Brahmins perform 'pooja' in Manjunatha temple, but that is done in the presence of the Heggade (R.W. 11) who also worships Manjunatha and controls all the institutions as one integral Dhannasthal. (v) The Jain shrine of Anna Daiva is also within the same 'prakaram' in which the temples of Manjunatha and Ammanvaru are· situated. · _(_ COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS _v._ RATNAVARMA _(Shinghal,_ J.) 899 It therefore appears that the High Court was justified in taking the view that Manjunatha temple is part and parcel of the composite institution known as Dharmasthal and is so inseparably connected with it that it is its integral part. It cannot th'erefore be held that the Manj unatha temple is an "endowment" within the meaning of clause ( 11) of section 9 of the Act for it has not been proved that any ,property belongs to it, or has been given or endowed for its support or for the performance of any service or charity connected therewith, or that it has any such premises of its own as could be said to form its ciwn endowment. It \:ould follow from what has been said above that even if the Manjunatha temple is assumed to be a place used, as of right, for public rel~ious worship by Hindus, it could come under the purview of the Act only if it could be established that it was a 'religious endowment' within the meaning of section 2, but this has ·not been proved to be so. On the other hand it appears that the present institution of Dharmasthal was originally a Jain rnligious and charitable institution to which property was endowed by the ancestors of the present Heggade who was himself a Jain. It· was that endowment which spread and gained more and more importance over the years because of the offerings made largely by Hindu and Jain devotees and worshippers. But it has not been established that there is any. endowment which could be said to belong exclusively to Manjunatha temple. Even if any such endowment was made by some one in the name of Manjunatha temple (as stated by K. C. Nambayar R.W. 3), it was taken to be an endowment for the entire institution known as Dharmasthal and wa.s treated as such. The Manjunatha temple cannot therefore be said to be a Hindu religious endowment within the meaning,_ of section 2. The provisions of the Act are not applicable to it, and the Board clearly erred in holding otherwise. It has been argued by Mr. Chowdhary for the appellant that generally speaking Hindus include Jains. According to him, the underlying assumption in the Act is that Jains are also Hindus, and that the fact that Jains also worship in a Hindu temple will not detract from the fact that it is a HindJ.1 temple as it is not necessary that a Hindu temple should be a place exclusively for Hindu public religious worsh:p. Reference in this connection has been made to _The_ _All India Sai Samaj_ _(Registered) by its President_ _D._ _Bhima Rao, Mylapore_ v. _The Deputy_ _Commissioner_ _for_ _Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments_ _(Admini.frration) De;;artment, Madras-34, and others,(_ _[1 ]_ _)_ _The State_ _of_ _Madras by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Madras and another_ v. _The Urumu Seshachalam Chettiar Charities, Tiruchirapalli, by its_ _Board_ _of_ _Trustees and others,(_ _[2 ]_ _)_ and _S. Kannan and others_ v. _The_ _All_ _India Sai Samaj (Registered) by its_ _President,_ _D._ _Bhima_ _Rao,_ _Mylapore(3)._ It will be sufficient to say that what section 9(12) of the Act requires by way of definition of a 'temple' is that for purposes of the Act a 'temple' should be dedicated for public religious worship, as of right, and it would not detract from its character as such if Jains also worship there. The argument of Mr. Chowdhary is, however, (1) (1967) 2 M.LJ. 618. (2) (1960) 2 M.LJ. 591. (3) (1974) 1 M.LJ. 174. A. B D E G H A B c D E F H 900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. futile because, as has been mentioned, the provisions of the Act will no_t be attracted to the Manjunatha temple in the absence of any evidence to prove the existence of an endowment for it. It h~s next been argued by Mr. Chowdhary that unless the temple of Man1unatha could be shown to be a Jain endowment it would come within the definition ~f 'temple' in the Act. This arg~ment has only to be stated to be re1ectcd because, as has been shown, there is no evidence to show that there is any endowment for the Manjumitha temple as such, and the temple is a part and parcel of Dharmasthul which came to be endowed in the facts and circumstances n~ntioned above. An ancillary argument has been made that an inference of Hindu endowment for the benefits of the Public should be drawn frolh the facts that the deity belongs to the Hindu Trinity, the architecture of the temple is that of a Hindu temple, the rituals are performed bv Brahmins according to Hindu form of worship and honey is used for "abhisheka" which is contrary to the Jain form of worship. We have already assumed that the temple possesses the characteristics which make _it_ a Hindu temple, but even so there is no justification for the argument that there is any endowment for it as such. Then it has been argued by Mr. Chowdhary that Manjunatha temple is not an "adjunct" to the composite institution of Dharmasthal for it is the most important temple in the campus. It has been urged that mere common management and control cannot justify the argument that Manjunatha temple is an inseparable part of the .Dharmastlml. It is not necessary to examine this argument once again, for we have given our reasons for taking a contrary view. Another argument of Mr. Chowdhary is that formal dedication of the endowment to the temple of Manjunatha was not necessary and that its user by the Hindus as of right would be enough to prove the initial dedication. Reliance for the argument has been placed on B. K. Mukherjea on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trus's. third edition page 27, which makes a mention of the rituals to be observed wh~n a donor wants to consecrate a temple and establish a deity in it. It may be that, in a given case, it may b~ difficult ~o pro\'c the original dedication because of the· lapse of considerable time but, in the present c.;:se it would not be possible to conclude that there was any such dedication bec;iuse there is nothing to show how Vadirain Swamiar, who installed the 'lingam' in ManjunatJia temple, could be said to be a donor when the property did not belong to him. In the view, we have taken, we find no force in this appeaJ af!d it is hereby dismissed with costs. BEG J.--1 agree with the order proposed by my learned brother Shinghai. But, (would like to indicate my own reasons in this case for reaching this conclusion. The following facts appear from the petition filed on· 22nd July. J 949, by the Heggade or trustee of the Manjunatha tem~le, and fr~1m affidavits and other documents filed either in support or m_ oppos:tt,111 to it, in the Court of the District Judge of South Kannara, 111 proceed _(_ COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS _V._ RATNAVARMA _(Beg,_ J.) 901 ings under Section 84(2) of the Madras Hindu "Religious Endowments Act of 1927, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') : In 1926, the Manjunatha temple was exempted by a Government notification from the operation of the provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1923. On 28th June, 1945, the Board, which had been set up under Section 10 of the Act of 1927, informed the Heggade that it was examining the position afresh whether the exemption which had been granted in 1926 should be withdrawn. ·After due enquiry, the Board had moved the Government on 26th October, 1945, to cancel the exelIY'tion and it was cancelled by the Government on 10th Decem **A** **B** ber, 1945, under the provisions of Act 2 of 1927. On 7th February, 1946, the Heggade had made an application to the Government to review **the.** cancellation. Thereupon, the Government directed the Board to enquire into the whole question again. That enquiry before. the Board took place on 27th July, 1946. The Board gave its decision **C** on 9th March, 1949, holding that the temple was covered by the provisions of the Act. It was in circumstances stated above that the Heggade had made an application before the District Judge after the coming into force on May 15, 1946, of the amending of Act 10 of 1946. The whole proceeding before the District Judge took place as a fresh and **D** original trial in the course of which detailed oral and documentary evidence was produced in support of the respedive cases by the two sides to the dispute which were : the Heggade of the. Jain Dharamasthala, of which the temple was said to be a part, and the Board of Commissioners under the Act (probably substituted by the Commissioner after the repeal of the Act and its substitution by other enactments on the subjeclf). **D** There was no argument before us on the question whether the proceedings were governed by the provisions of Jhe Act before its amendment in 1946 or its provisions as they stood after the amendment. But, it appears to me that the case proceeded on the footing that the amended Act, which had come into force before the Heggade had petitioned to the District Judge, governed the rights of the parties and the scope of the enquiry. The question whether the Institution known as Dharmasthala included the Manjunatha temple or whether Manjunatha temple could be said to have a separate legal entity of its own as an Institution seems to me to be covered by the provisions of Section 84 as they stood both before the amendment in 1946 and after it was amended in 1946. An appea.J to the High Court, however, lay"under the amended provisions only. There was no objection to the appeal to the High Court on the ground that the unamended provisions did not contain such a right. Here, I may, for the purpose of clarifying the exact scope of the enquiry out of which the case now before us by special leave has arisen, reproduce the provisions of Section 84 of the Act both before and after its amendment in 1946. . The unamended provisions of Section 84 read as follows : ·"84 (1) If any dispute arises as to whether an institution is a **E** **F** **G** **H** math or temple as defined in this Act or whether a temple js an· excepted temple, such dispute shall be decided by the Board. A 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 s.c.R. (2) Any pers0n affected by a decision under sub-section Cl) . may, within one year, apply to the Court to modify or set aside such decision, but, subject to the result of such application, the order of the Board shall be final". After the amendment by Act X of 1946, Section 84 reads as follows : B "84(1) If any dispute arises as to c D E F G H (a) whether an institution is a math or temple as d<;llned in this Act, (b) whether trustee is a hereditary trustee as defined in this Act or not, or ( c) whether any property or money endowed is a specific endowment as defined in this Act, or not. Such dispute shall be decided by the Board and no Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall take cognizance of any such dispute. (2) Any person affected by a decision under sub-section ( 1), may within six months apply to the Court to - modify or set aside such decision. ( 3) From every order of a District Judge, on an application under sub-section (2), an appeal shall lie to the High Court within three months from the date of the order. ( 4) Subject to the result of an application under ·mb section (2) or of an appeal under Sub-section (3), the decision of the Board shall be final. (Substituted by Madras Act X of 1946)". The case of the Heggade or the managing trustee was far from consistent. He took up the foHowing positions : firstly, that the temple was "private" and not a public temple and was exempt from the provisions of the Act for that reason; secondly, that the temple was a Jain institution, or, an integral part of it, and, therefore, excluded from the purview of the Act; and, thirdly, that the temple, even if it was to be deemed to be a Hindu temple, as a place at which the Hindu public could worship as of right, was really not separable from the larger Jain institution, so that, irrespective. of the clmracter of worship or the beliefs of the worshippers at the temple, it was not an institution which could be viewed separately from the Dharamasthala or be held to be just a Hindu temple as an "institution". The Board considered the Heggade's case to be "that the Institution is a unique institution where a Hindu temple was founded and managed by a Jain family". A subtle distinction was thus made between the temple as a place of worship and as a part of a larger Jain i:tstitution. Although, I am douotful of the correctness of this distinction, on facts, yet, for the reasons given below, I do not consider this to be a fit case for interference with . the findings of the High Court, accepting the correctness of this distinction, on the particular facts of the case before us. ###### '' COMJVL FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS _V._ RATNAVARMA _(Beg, J.)_ 903 It seems to me that the question whether the Manjunatha temple _"f_ .could be described as a Hindu temple as defined by the Act, could be conclusively answered by a reference to a number of admissions of the Heggade and his witnesses. Indeed, the exemption of the temple from the provisions of the Act by the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 3 ( 1) of the Act, could be sought by the Heggade only on the assumption that the temple cor:tstituted a Hfadu _religious endowment which ought to be exempted from the operations ,. -of the provisions of the Act. If it was exempt by virtue of a statutory provision from the provisions of the Act, as a Jain institution, there was no need for an order to exempt it. The scope of proceedings which have come up before us seems to go no further than resolution of certain disputes. They may, however, involve making of certain ·declaratioi!s. The origin of the temple was said to be given in a document con· taining a st!tement of 1806, by the then Dharmasthala Heggade, _produced by the managing Heggade, which runs as follows _:_ A B c D E F G H "There was formerly a woman called Amoo Devi Ba!lalthi placed there by the favour of God to perform the ceremonies. The God's name was Durga Amba Kallarkie, but was subsequently changed to Kanya Kumari. God appeared to the woman in a dream and revealed himself to her telling her he would remain in her house and she should therefore procure a bed and a light for him to perform ceremonit:;s, also that she should build another house near to his to . perform ceremonies in and that her children and heirs should accordingly succeed her. Under this arrangement, the temple shall ever flourish. -As related before, the God in the shape of a woman revealed himself to Ballalthy and the Ballalthy acted accordingly. In the 1396 Sal!v'ahanam, the Peer of Udipi, Wadirajaswamy, arrived at Dharmasthala where the Ballalthy ordered him to prepare his dinner and on the next day to leave the place. The Peer replied ; "This is the residence of Devil. I must establish God in it before I eat my dinner". On this, the Ballalthy consulted he God in her sleep, who appeared and encouraged her, desired her to give the Peer whatever was required and told her he would establish the Kuddera God there saying 'you will tell this to the Peer who on hearing it will eat his dinner'. When I bring the God from Kuddera you will have a place prepared on the left hand side for his residence and a Brahrnin appointed to perform ceremonies. "On the same evening the Manjunatha (Kudder God) was brought and a house built and he was lodged in it on the next morning, this was all seen. The Ballalthi informed the Peer of this. He accordingly came and after dining departed. Somfj,ime afterwards the Ballalthy built a house on the right hand side and made it the residence of the God and Brahrnins were appointed to perform ceremonies to both. The old God (viz., that of the Ballalthy) some time afterwards told the Ballalthy he had appointed the devil Kulataya to preside over the offerings and therefore she must build a house for him, A B c 0 E F G H 904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. to expend all the religious offerings properly. should any dispute arise, proper investigations were to be ma~k. 'Some delay being macle in the collection of the offerings by Kulataya, Annappa, another Devil was fixed, for whom another residence was buiit and four people were chosen to superintend the charities which the offerings admitted of ... -", As the Board observed, it appeared that Sri Maujunatha idol was installed on the occasion of Vadirajaswamy of Udipi's visit to the Dharmasthala. This was taken to be the introduction of the worship of God as opposed to that of the Devil. Sri Manjunatha was the installed God. It was asserted that this was in accordance with Jain beliefs. It was said that God spoke through the Heggade ~ho acted as the oracle and used to answer questions put to him by devotees at special se.>sions arranged for this purpose. It was. however, clear that Hindus in general were not prohibited from worshipping at 'his temple. They had worshipped here long enough freely and publicly to acquire the right to worship as members of the Hindu public in general. This right, I think, could not now be denied to them whatever be its origin. After an elaborate discussion of the nature of beliefs and worship, the Board had concluded : " .. .it is clear that Shri Manjunatha Temple, Dharmasthala, Puttur Taluk, South Kanara District is a 'temple' as defined in Madras Act II of 1927 and we decide accordingly". When the matter went up before the District Judge under Section 24, sub. s. (2) of the Act, the District Judge, after discussing the evidence, recorded his conclusion as follows : "Therefore it appears to me that taking into consideration all these circumstances the claim of the petitioner that this Shri Manjunatha Shrine though it may be a Hindu one in his private temple seems to be well-founded and it is not a temple which is either express'1y dedicated to the Hindu public or which has been used or resorted to by the Hindu public as of right". It is difficult for me to understand when; the District Court found the law which requires "express" dedication for use by the Hindu public or why he thought ·that the, public had not acquired a right to worship. Its findings, at any ·rate, carried with them the implication that, although there was a dedication, it was f~r "privat<:" ~urposes. I find it· difficult to conceive of such a transact10n. Ded1catJon to a deity necessarily implies a cessation of individual"human ownership. The dispute was then taken to the High Court of Mysore, which reached the conclusion, after a detailed discussion of the whole evidence: "If, 'Sri Manjunatha' were a Hindu deity exclusively and not a deity worshipped by the Jains as well, it is inconceivable that the name 'Manaya' should be found among 9 Jains also.. In our opinion, Sri Manjunatha is a deity worshipped _{_ ' [< ] cm1M. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS _v._ RATNAVARMA _(Beg,_ J.) 905 both by the Hindus as well as the Jains in accordance with th~ir respective faiths and it is neither an exclusively Hindu deity nor an exclusively Jain deity''. It then stated its views as follows : "Since the iYstitution is n~t a 'Temple' as defined. in the Act, the further question whether it is a private temple of Nellya?i Beedu family .as contended by the Neggade does not anse for determination. The proceedings before the Board and the Court below are under the Act. In view of our finding that the Institution is not a 'temple' under the Act, the Board has no jurisdiction over the Institution. Having helal that the A'tt has no application to the Institution and the Board has no jurisdiction over it as contended by the Heggade, the Court below shou~d have desisted from giving any inding on the question whether it is a private temple of Nellyadi Beedu family. We express no opinion on the said issue". The High Court's view seemed to be that there was a "dedication" but for mixed purposes outside the Act. Jain beliefs, as distinct from generally held and accepted Hindu beliefs, the origin and nature of the endowments, the established practices and_ customs relating to management of the temple, the receipt and disbursement of income of what was held to be a single institution called Dharmasthala, had been taken into account by the High ~ourt in order to decide whether "the institution" is a "temple" as defined in the Act or something more. Its opinion seemed to be that the rea·l question to be decided here was not whether there was a temple, as defiend by the Act, but whether the temple, which existed there, was an inseparable part and parcel of a Jain institution which was outside the Act, or, it was an institution which, taken by itself, was covered by the Act. If the temple was, so to speak, a mere appendage of the larger ni.ultipurposed institution, all the parts of which were managed as a single entity, the temple could not, in the opinion of the High Court, be "the institution". Although, I am prepared to accept the High Court's findings on questions of fact, I do not find it possible to agree with the High Court's view that, if a place of worship is open to both fains and Hindus in general, or, has a mixed character, it is not a temple within the meaning of that term as defined in Section 9, sub. s. (12) of the Act. A11 that Section 9, sub. s. (12) requires is that it should be a place of worship _either dedicated_ for the benefit of _or used as_ _of_ _right_ by the Hindu commtmity or a section thereof as a place of religious worship. The word _exclusively_ is not there at all so as to justify any exclusion of a place of worship from the definition of a temple on the ground that the place of worship is not confined to worship,_ as a matter of right, to either Hindus as members of the general pubhc or to any section of Hindus. The Act does not define the term "Hindu". This word has had a fairly wide connotation. . In origin, it indicated peopl~ living in ~he Indus region. It is only by subsequent usage and extension of meanmg A B c D E F G H .A :e c D E F H 906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 S.C.R. that the word acquired a religious, and, therefore, in this sense, a more ,limited significance. But, in some contexts, the term "Hindu", even· today, stands for Indiims in general. In foreign countries all Indians are sometimes described as "Hindus". Even as a term used for Indians professing a particular type of belie~s, which are presumed to have an indigenous origin, it is wide enough to include Jains and Sikhs. Hence, this is the meaning given to the term Hindu in the Hindu Succession Act. In a statute dealing with religious endowments, the term, even though not defined, may be presumed to stand for people of this country, with certain religious beliefs held or forms of religious worship practised by people of this country originally. But, this would also embrace a very wide sector of the public. And, in any event, there is nothing whatsoever in the definition of "temple" by the. Act to justify the inference that Jains or any other group of person must be excluded from worship before it can be a "temple". For reasons given above, I am unable to read into the definition of the word, "temple'', given in the Act, the idea of excluding from the benefits of the Act temples open for worship to Hindus of all sects and beliefs. This means that a place of worship where Jains. as a section of Indian citizens, even when distinguished by their special doctrines and practices from the rest of the Hindus, worship together with Hindus of other sects, could not be a temple outside the Act. All that the Act requires is that Hindus in general, or even a section of Hindus, should be able to worship there as of right. This requirement is, in my opinion, satisfied by Shri Manjunatha temple on the findings of the High Court which I accept, not without hesitation, as correct. The view I have taken above is, however, not enough, in my opinion, to dispose of an issue under section 84 ( 1) (a) of the Act. It has to be borne in mind that the issue to be decided under Section 84(1)(a) of the Act is whether an "institution" is a math or temple as defined in the Act. It is not whether a particular place is a temple, in the sense that it is set apart for worship by the Hindu public in general or a section of it. It is whether an "institution" itself is a temple as defined by the Act. The term temple has been defined in section 9(12) of the Act as follows ~ "9(12) 'Temple' means a place, by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community or any section thereof, as a place of religious worship". - It, therefore, becomes necessary, in order to decide a dispute under Section 84(1) (a) whether a particular place is a temple as contemplated by the Act. But, that is not enough for the decision of the whole issue to be decided under Section 84(1) (a) of the Act. For that purpose, attention has to be also directed towards deciding the question whether the "institution" to be considered is a temple and nothing more. If the temple, as a place of worship, is an integral part of an institution, so that it is not separable as an institution, in itself. the mere fact that there is a 'temple', as defined by the Act, where ... \ I ' y , COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS _V._ RATNAVARMA _(Beg,_ J.) 9Q7 Hindu members of the public worship as .a matter of right, will not do. In .such a case, the "institution" is not the temple, although a temple can, by itself, be an institution. The term "institution" is not defined in ilie Act of 1927, although, in the more elaborate provisions of Madras 'Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act XXII of 1959, there is now a definition of the term "religious institution" as well showing that this concept is wider than that of a temple. If, therefore, there is a distinction between the meanings of "temple" merely as a place of worship, as defined in Section 9 (12), and a "temple" as an institution, as there seems to me to be, an authority deciding the issue whether it is an "institution", as contemplated by Section 84(1) (a) of the Act, will have to consider whether the history, the beliefs lying at the inception and sought to be propagated, the forms of worship meant to be kept alive, the prevalent customs and practices, the exact nature and process of the endowments connected with the iitistitution, the established rules for its management, the objects to be carried out by those in charge of the endowment, taken together, w'ould justify the inference that a particular "temple", as defined by the Act, is also a separate or separable institution by itself or is just an integral and organically inseparable part of an institution or organisation .outside the Act. These wider· aspects, which may not appear to be relevant at first sight, seem quite necessary to consider when we closely examine the nature of the issue contemplated by Section 84(1) (a) of the Act and decided by the High Court. In the case before us, the findings of the High Court show that the institution or organisation of which Manjunatha temple is an inseparable part, is predominantly Jain in character. On such a finding, it would be exempt from the operation of the Act by reason of the explanation to section 2 exduding Jain "religious endowments" from the benefits of the Act. It may be that very good grounds could be given for holding that the temple is a separable or separate entity dedicated, by user, for worship by Hindus in general, without restriction of worship by Jains only as a matter of right. But, as two views seem to' be reasonably open on the question-whether it is such a separate or separable institution or entity : I do not consider it fit to be reopened by us under Article 136. A consideration of the property which belongs to or is "endowed for the support of maths or temples or for performance of any service or charity connected therewith and includes the premises of maths or temples" may also become necessary so as to determine the character of an endowment as a part of the "institution" and the process by which it took place. The institution endowed, on the findings of the High Court, being" more than or wider than the Manjunatha temple, is not just a Hindu temple although a temple, by itself, could be such an institution if it were a separable entity. The origin and process of dedication is not always found ·embodied in a document. Where the dedication itself is evidenced by a document, its objects, such as they may be, can be determined by interpreting the document which makes the task of the authorities deciding the question generally easier. There are, however, many cases in 8 -1338SCJ/76 A B c D E F G H 908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977] 1 S.C.R. A which ded!cation or endowment of prqperty for a particular purpose has to be mferred from immemorial user of a property in a particular manner or from the conduct of a party, such as permission to build a road for use by the public or permission to bury the dead on a piece of land. The. last mentioned type of case may also give rise sometimes to an estoppel against the owner of the land. B Cases where an inference of "dedication" results from what may be considered immemorial user or a kind of permissible user giving rise to an estoppel, because others have spent money or done some act on the strength of a licence or permission to use the land for a particular purpose, are not uncommon in our country. They should not, as _Lord Macnaghten_ hinted in _Bholanath_ _Nu11di_ v. _Midnapore_ _Zemindary Co. Ltd.,(_ _[1]_ _)_ be complicated by resorting to the jfeculiar C English notions of dedication, when he said : # ' D E "It appears to their Lordships that on proof of the.fact of enjoyment from time immemorial there could be no difficulty in the way of the Court finding a legal origin for the right claimed. · Unfortunately however (in the lower Courts) the question was overlaid, and in some measure obscured, by copious references to English authorities and by the application of principles or doctrines, more or less refined, founded on legal conceptions not altogether in harmony with Eastern notions". After quoting the passage, set out above, Lord Radcliffe, _Lakshmidlwr Misra_ & _Ors._ v. _Rangalal_ & _Ors.,e)_ pointed out p. 58) about such dedications in English law : "But dedication is only known to English Jaw as something equivalent to an irrevocable licence granted by the owner of soil to the use of the public. Dedication of a piece of <land to a limited section of the public, such as the inhabitants of a village, is a claim unknown in law, and evidence limited to such special user would not justify· a finding of dedication: see _Poole_ v. _Huskinson,_ ( 1843) 11 M. & W. 827: (63 R.R. 782), _Hildrath'v. Adamson,_ (1860) 8 C.B. (N.S.) 587; (125 R.R. 794). _Bermondsey_ v. _!5rown,_ (1865) l Eq. 204: (147 R.R. 124)". in (at i _r_ ; _f-_ It was explained in _Lakshmidhar Misra's_ case (supra) that the G doc1sine of lost grant originated in English law "as a technical device to enable title to be made by prescription despite the impossibility of proving immemorial user". Prescription, by a con\Oention, was deeme.d to start in 1189, when Normans conquered England. The reat basis of such rights in English .law seemed to be prescr!pti'?n. In this very case differences were pomted out between a ded1cat10n and a custo mary right enjoyed by people of a locality to use a particular piece of land on certain,occasions. It was indicated here that a dedication, H by presumed Jost gra~t, in English law, unlike customary rights. which (1) 31 I.A. 75. (2) A.T.R. 1950. P.C. 56. COMM. l'OR HINDU RELIGIOUS _V._ RATNAVARMA _(Beg,_ _J.)_ 909 _Y_ may become attached to land, postulates a grantee and the creation A ·or an estate. Although certain essential or basic prerequisites of a valid trust in English law, such as the three reasonable certainties laid down by _Lord Eldon_ _in_ _Knight_ v. _Knight(l)-that_ of the obligation to be carried , out, that of the subject matter or of property affected by it, and that -!,of the object to be served or the persons. to be benefited-are required B in this country too for valid endowments no less than they are in England, yet, valid dedications can be inferred, under our la~ without showing compliance with at least some of the technical requirements of · English law. Dedicat!ons in Hindu law do not require acceptance of propert)' dedicated for a religious or a public purpose. In _Monohar Ganesh_ C _V._ _Lakhmiravi-(_ _[2]_ _),_ a rule of Hindu law coming down from ancient times was thus stated : "A Hindu who wishes to establish a religious or charitable institution may, according to his law, express his purpose and endow it, and the ruler wilf give effect to the bounty or at least protect it so far, at any rate, as is consistent with his own Dharma or conception of morality". D Neither a document nor express words are essential for a dedication for a religious or public purpose in our country. Such dedication may be implied froll! user permitted for public and religious purposes for sufficient length of time. The conduct of those whose property is presumed to be deiicated for a religious or public purpose and other circumstances are taken into account in arriving at the inference of such a dedication. Although religious ceremonies of Sankalpa and Samarpanam are relevant for proving a dedication, yet, they are not indispensable (see : _B. K. Mukherjea_ on the "Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts"-Third Edn. 1970 p. 80). The question of an implied dedication by user by the public is particularly important in cases like the one before us where a claim that a trust is private or sectarian in nature is set up against a wider claim on behalf of the general public. In _Deoki Nandan_ v. _Murlidhar(_ _[3]_ _),_ this Court said : "the distinction between a private and a public trust is . that whereas in the former the beneficiaries are specific individuals, in the latter they are the general public or a class thereof. While in the former the beneficiaries are persons who are ascertained or capable of being ascertained, in the latter they constitute a body which is incapable of ascertainment". E F G -\ In _B. K. Mukherjea's Tagore Law Lectures_ on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts (1970)-(3rd edition), we find the following passage at page 143 : H (I) (1840) 3 Beav. 148. (2) l. L.R. 12 Bom. 247, 263. (3) (1956] S.C.R. 756. A B c D E F G H 910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1977] 1 S.C.R. "In cases where no express dedication is proved, the character of the endowment must always be a legal inference from proved facts. As in the case of highways, long user is undoubtedly a material element from which an inference of dedication may arise. If the public have been in the habit of worshipping in the temple in an open and unconcealed. manner, for a long period of time, and were never denied. aiiy access to it, that would be a strong evidence of dedication. With regard to period of user, no hard and fast rule has been laid down. 'There is no minimum which must be fulfilled, and there is no maximum which compels the inference'. Each case would depend upon its own circumstances·. Besides user by the public, conduct of the founder afld his; descendants is also relevant, and if they in fact held out the temple to be a public temple, a very strong presumJJtion of dedication would arise". Cases are also cited there where reliance had been placed upon circumstances such as the structure or the location of a temple outside a private residence or dwelling so as to be exposed to public view and worship by members of the general public to infer dedication for the public. In _Pujari Lakshmana Goundan_ v. _Subramaniya,_ ( t) the questiorr. for determination was whether a Hindu temple founded between 1841 and 1856 had been dedicated for use by the public by its founder whohad executed no deed showing this. But, the ~under. Lakshmana 1 [_ ] Goundan, was shown to have installed an idol at his house and allowed Brahmins and Hindus to worship the idol as if it was a public place of worship. The Hindu public was admitted free of charge, though only on certain days in the week, in the greater part of the temple, and, in one part only on payment of a fee, and, in the inner shrine, not at all. It appears that the income from offerings and fees was spent by the Pujari founder on the temple and the idol as well as on himself. Nevertheless their Lordships of the Privy Council held that Laksh#### mana Go;mdan, having held out and represented LO the Hindu public • that the temple was for their benefit, the inference was irresi·stible that he had dedicated the temple for use by the public. In _B. K. Mukharji's_ Lectures (supra), the facts of this case have been cited as an example - of an application of the principle of estoppel. Our law reports abound with similar cases where dedication by founders or owners is inferred or presumed, irrespective of their own religious persuasions, from the purposes for whichr a piece of property has been used for long enough. In some cases; the elements of an estoppeI are present. But, the basis of such dedications seems, in many cases of this ' type, to be, strictly speaking, nothing more than a presumption from • certain facts. Perhaps we could describe it, in most cases of this sort, as a "deemed dedication" although it must not be confused with a fiction. It is, after all, an inference from facts which must exist and lead to the conclusion deduced. (I) 29 C.W.N. 1,12 (P.C.) _f-_ _'f_ COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS _V._ RATNAVARMA _(Beg,_ J.) 911 In view of this well established doctrine of implied endowment of !Property, by its long us~r for a: particular religious or pu~lic purpose, based on a presumed consent of the owner, I do not thmk that the High Court could be held to have reached a wrong conclusion even if It has inferred that, whatever be the origin of the Manjunatha temple, it had become a separate institution with an endowment of its own consisting at least of the land over which the temple had been built, the building, and the idol installed with free access to it by the Hindu public in general which made offerings even though Jains also worship there. ijevertheless, in view of the discussion of a good deal of evidence of 'the! peculiar composite character of the institution known as Dhannasthala, and, bearing in mind our general rule of practice that •we do not r*isturb findings of the final Court of fact where two views are possible, I do not propose to differ from the conclusion reached by the High Court that the temple was not a separate institution. The Manjunatha temple, on the findings of the :High Court, which we are upholding, had become an accretion or growth on the body, if one may ·so put it, of the institution kriown iii Dharmasthala, even though it could be removed from that body by a surgical operation. It is not for us to say, on the findings before us, whether a situation has arisen in which a surgical operation may be called for. Such an opinion can only be given upon the results of a more thorough investigation into the objects of the institution, its properties, the sources of its income, and the manner in which they are utilised than we have before us. The question which troubles me, however, is whether a religious :institution or even that part of it to which members of the public make -contributions, through their offering and gifts, is to be left entirely uncontrolled by authorities specially appointed by the State' inr order to see that such income or donations are not misused or are utilised for the purposes for which they are meant. It seems to me that religious beliefs, professions, and practices, which have a powerful hold over the minds and feelings of the people, particularly in our country, should not be permitted to become mere cloaks for exploiting the credulity of the simple minded and the ignorant and unsophisticated. When a religious institution becomes a means of obtaining money or material benefits, in rhe form of offerings or donations or gifts, as it genrally does, from members of the. public, a danger of its misuse can only be effectively averted by appropriate supervision. It seems to me that this is the whole purpose of the Act. The income from the public, through a religious institution, seems to me to bring in that secular aspect which justifies interference by State authorities through adequate supervision. Howe,ver, these are matters which so far as religious endowments, such as the one before us, held to be predominantly Jain, for the reasons given by the High Court, are concerned, thl'l State Government can take into account in deciding whether it A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1977] 1 s.c.R. \ 912 A should exercise its powers under Section 3(2) of the Act, to extend. the benefits of the Act to them, or, if necessary, to amend the Act. The District Court did not specifically frame or try any issue on the question whether any endowment existed at all. It had' ' framed. the following points for determination: \ B c D E F G H I have tried to indicate above what seemed to me to be the real nnture of the proceedings in the course of which a dispute covered by Section 84 (1) (a) of the Act arose and also the principles on which su:-h a dispute should, in my opinion, be resolved, although I do _not_ consider it necessary, in exercise of the special. powers of _this Court under Art. 136 to interfere with the High Court's findings of fact, because I think that the powers of the Government which is not evena party, acting under Section 3 of the Act, are not restricted by decisions given by Courts in resolving a dispute covered by Section 84( 1) of the Act. All that the Government was bound to do under· Section 3 of the Act was to consult the Board. The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959, which contains 1he law governing the subject today, has section 2 relating to a general' power to extend the provisions of the Act to Jain public religious institutions and endowments as a mater of policy, irrespective of the character of management, whether good or bad and Section 3, for the· extension of the pmvisions '.)f the Act to pqrticular Jain religious "(1) Is the Sri Manjunatha Devaru only a part of the institution known as Dharmastbala and not a separate institution in itself? (2) Is the Dharmasthala, a ch~i!!lble institution? • ' (3) Is the Dharmasthala and in particular thf Manjunatha Devaru not an exclusively Hindu place of worship ? If not do not the provisions of the Hindu Religious Endowments Act apply? ( 4) Is the Manjunatha Devaru a private place of worship. (5) Is the order of the Board dated 9th March 1949 liable to be set aside?" _!-_ _(_ The High Court also did not give the finding that no endowment whatsoever exists. The extent of property covered by any endowment was also not really investigated as to issue. was framed on it. ~_A_ tleast the structure of the temple with the idol installed and the • ground upon which the temple stands must be deemed to be dedicate4 even though these may not, for purposes of management, form separable units. The High Court took the ·view that the dispute falling under Section 84(1) (a) could be disposed of by deciding issues or points numbered 1 and 3 only. The District Court had chosen to resolve the principal dispute that arose by deciding issue No. 4. Other _r_ questions were treated as merely subsidiary or even unnecessary to decide. COMM. FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS _V._ RATNAVARMA _(Beg,/,)_ 913 and cha1itable institutions, in cases of mismanagement, after due A inquiry. These powers are not, in any way, affected by the dispute which has been brought before us under the provisions of an Act repealed iong ago. For the reasons given above, I concur with the order proposed by my learned brother Shinghal that this appeal be dismissed and parties be left to bear their own costs throughout. e V.P.S. _Appeal dismissed ._