FATEH CHAND Vs. DAULAT CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A temple was built at Maheshwari Mohal, Kanpur City, in the year 1872 by one Raghunath Pershad, who installed in that temple an idol of Shri Dharam Nath Swami. A dharamshala was later purchased by Santokh Chand, father of the defendant-respondent, but it is admitted that there is no income from the Dharamshala. It is, however, alleged by the plaintiff that this was property of the temple and did not belong to Santokh Chand. In a partition in 1918, it was found that a sum of Rs. 19,337-1-9 belonging to the temple was in deposit in the parties' ancestral firm Sukhrup Mal Raghunath Pershad. At the time of the partition, the defendant was made responsible for payment of this money to the temple and a charge was created on the two houses allotted to him and it was provided in the arbitration award that he would not be entitled to sell these houses except with the object of raising money to repay the sum due to the temple. With this money some land had to be purchased with the income of which the temple was to be maintained. The money was not paid nor was any property purchased or endowed for the maintenance of the temple. On 2-9-1948, Fateh Chand appellant filed an application under Section 14, Religious Endowments Act (XX [20] of 1863) and asked for the following reliefs :

(2.) The lower Court held that Section 14, Religious Endowments Act only related to a case where the circumstances were such that the Bengal Regulation XIX [19] of 1810 would have applied, and as the Bengal Regulation XIX [19] of 1810 would have only applied to a temple which had land granted for its support, the lower Court was of the opinion that the suit must fail. Two rulings, one of the Calcutta High Court and the other of the Madras High Court, were mentioned by the learned Judge in his judgment, namely, Jan Ali v. Ram Nath, 8 cal. 32 and Muthu v. Gangathara, 17 Mad. 95. We have looked into the Bengal Regulation and these cases and some others that have been cited before us, and, in our view, the suit was rightly decided by the lower Court. The Preamble of the Religious Endowments Act is to the effect that the Act was being passed to relieve the Boards of Revenue, and the Local Agents, in the Presidency of Fort William in Bengal, and the Presidency of Fort Saint George, from the duties imposed on them by Regulation XIX [19] of 1810 of the Bengal Code, and Regulation VII [7] of 1817 of the Madras Code. In the Bengal Regulation XIX [19] of 1810 the Board of Revenue had to see that the rents and produce of lands granted for the support of mosques, Hindu temples, colleges and for other purposes were duly appropriated and also that bridges, Saraia Kattras and other public buildings were maintained and repaired and that Nazul property or escheats were in proper custody and were properly disposed of. The scope of the Madras Regulation, it appears from the Regulation, was a little wider than that of the Bengal Regulation. While the Bengal Regulation begins with the words,

(3.) It was urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the fact that a charge was created on the two houses for the money due to the temple must be interpreted to mean that the charge on this property was an endowment in favour of the temple. We are not impressed by this argument. It cannot be said that there was any endowment of the charge. The money was no doubt endowed property and it was for the recovery of the money that the charge was created on the two houses, but it cannot be urged that the houses were endowed property. Neither the charge could be deemed to be endowed property, nor is it possible to hold that the charge was land within the meaning of that term in the Bengal Regulation XIX [19] of 1810.