CHINTA VENKATA SUNDARA VENUGOPALASWAMY Vs. PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and the connected Revision Petition arise out of an application made to the District Judge of Ganjam under Section 84 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. The Board had held that the temple in question to be a public temple and the petition was filed to have that declaration set aside. As it has been held that this Court can deal with this matter only under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, and that no appeal lies against the decision of the District Court on such applications, it is not open to us to review the learned judge's findings of fact. But we cannot help thinking that in the present case, the conclusion of the learned District Judge has been arrived at on the basis of some erroneous assumption of law and without sufficient realisation of the importance of coming to a definite conclusion as to whether at one time the temple was a private temple or not.

(2.) We do not wish to say anything which will hamper the lower Court in coming to its own conclusion on remand. We wish to point out that in view of the considerations adverted to in the learned Judge's order as supporting the petitioner's contention that, at the inception, the temple might have been a private temple, the petitioner is entitled to invoke the aid of the observations of the Judicial Committee in Roman V/s. Achuthan Nair (1934) 67 M.L.J. 788: L.R. 61 I.A. 405: I.L.R. 58 Mad. 91 at 104 (P.C) that if originally the temple was dedicated for the use of the founder's family and was a private trust, the fact of the admission of the public to the temple later on would not of itself necessarily affect the private character of the trust. It therefore seems proper that we should ask the learned District Judge to come to a definite conclusion on the question whether originally the temple was a private temple or not.

(3.) Again, the learned judge seems to think that the fact of properties being endowed in trust for this temple in 1900 itself amounts to a dedication to a public purpose. This is not correct in law. The dedication of property will no doubt impress the property with the character of trust but it may as well be a private trust as a public trust. The question whether the dedication was a public trust or not must be determined independently of the factum of the dedication of property. The circumstance that similar language was used in other dedications made about the same time to a temple which is admittedly public does not seem to us relevant because in the latter case, it is the admitted public character of the temple in favour of which the endowment was made that makes the endowment public, and it will be begging the question to assume that in the present case also the endowment so made must have been for a public purpose.