BHASKAR SHRIPAD DEOBHAKTA Vs. SHANKAR GANESH MODAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of original proceedings commenced under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter the Act).

(2.) One Raghunath Bhatji Maharaj, also known as Adwaiteshwar Sachhidanand Saraswati, was a great saint who took Samadhi on the bank of river Godavari at Nasik in the year 1817 on Magh Wadya Chaturdashi, Shake 1739. On this Samadhi, a Shivling was installed. Over this Samadhi and the Shivling, a massive structure was built in stone resembling a temple having a Kalash and Gabhara around the same. In the precinct thereof were constructed a Sabhamandap and Dharmashala by different persons. The Samadhi and the structure built over it and the constructions surrounding the same and in the precincts thereof came to be known as Adwaiteshwar Mandir and Raghunath Bhatji Maharaj Math.

(3.) The appellant herein made an application under protest under section 18 of the Act. His original contention was that the aforesaid properties were his ancestral private properties. The said stand was given up, contention thereafter being that the said properties constituted a private trust and not a public trust. This was opposed by respondent No. 1 Shankar Ganesh Modak who contended that the Samadhi known as Raghunath Maharaj alias Adwaiteshwar Math and the temple and the building in question were all along used for public religious worship and functions. Raghunath Bhatji Sachhidananad Saraswati had a large spiritual following. After he took Samadhi, a Shivling named as Adwaiteshwar was installed on the Samadhi in 1920 and a big temple of God Shiva was constructed by one Hatu who also provided for daily worship of the Shivling. Subsequently, Sardar Potnis constructed a spacious Sabhamandap to the north of the temple and one Angre constructed a Dharamshala and a Math on the eastern side. Utsavs and festivals were celebrated therein by the public. Public subscriptions were also collected in that behalf. Innumerable devotees have been worshipping there. Several religious functions are also being performed. All this was being done and performed without any permission from anyone. The properties were also exempted from taxation on the ground that they were being used for public religious worship and functions. In all these circumstances, contention of Modak was that these properties constituted a public trust within the meaning of the Act.