Case title: Sri Vishnupad Bhagwan & Ors v. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust & Ors

Date of Order: 19th January 2024

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra

Parties: Appellant(s): 1. Sri Vishnupad Bhagwan through his next friend Sri Kanhaiya Lal Gurda,

                                      2. Sri Kanhaiya Lal Gurda

                                      3. Ram Nath Gurda

                                      4. Som Nath Gurda

                                      5. Raju Lal Gurda

                                      6. Ashok Lal Gurda

                                      7. Sri Ram Gurda

                                   8. Rajesh Katariar

Respondent(s):

1. The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust through its Special Officer, Vidya Pati Marg, Patna

2. District Magistrate, Gaya

3. Superintendent of Police, Gaya

4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gaya

5. Additional Collector, Gaya

SUBJECT:

The instant case dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Supreme Court’ or ‘the High Court’) revolves around the determination of whether the Vishnupad temple is a private trust belonging to the Gayawal Brahmins or a religious public trust accessible to the general public. The dispute also encompasses the procedural aspects of the supersession of the temple's managing committee by the Bihar Religious Trust Board. The Court evaluated the origins of the temple, the rights of devotees to worship, and the extent of public involvement in temple affairs to ascertain its legal status as either a private or public trust. It was held that the temple is a public trust, upholding the lower court’s ruling.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:

The Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Board Act, 1950 (the Act):

• Section 2(1)
• Section 3
• Section 78

• Section 29(2)

The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC):

• Section 80
• Section 96
• Section 10
• Section 11
• Section 47
• Order 41 Rule 31
• Order 2 Rule 2

OVERVIEW:

• The Gayawal Brahmins, a community of priests, assert an exclusive ownership claim over the Vishnupad temple situated in Gaya.
• They based their claim on ancient scriptures and religious texts, which suggest that the temple was bestowed upon them by Sri Lord Brahma, the creator, in prehistoric times.
• Rani Ahilya Bai, known for her devoutness, undertook the construction of the Vishnupad temple.
• She replaced an older structure with a new temple, dedicating it to Lord Vishnu.
• The construction was intended to benefit the Gayawal Brahmins, signifying a gesture of devotion and reverence to the deity.
• Over the years, the Gayawal Brahmins assumed collected income derived from temple properties to support various activities such as rituals, ceremonies, and maintenance of the temple premises.
• The tranquility surrounding the management of the Vishnupad temple was disrupted when various external entities, including local authorities, attempt to interfere with its affairs.
• In response to the perceived interference, the Gayawal Brahmins initiated legal proceedings by filing Title Suit No. 38 of 1977.
• Through this suit, they sought a legal declaration affirming the private ownership of the Vishnupad temple by the Gayawal Brahmins.
• The Subordinate Judge IV, Gaya, initially ruled in favor of the Gayawal Brahmins.
• The trial court, then the High Court decreed that the Vishnupad temple indeed belongs to the Gayawal Brahmins as private property.
• However, the judgment faced a challenge in Title Appeal No. 45 of 1993. The learned Additional District Judge 1, Gaya, subsequently set aside the initial decree, leading to the filing of the Second Appeal by the plaintiffs.

ISSUES RAISED:

• Whether Vishnupad Temple is a private or public trust?
• Whether there is a manifest perversity in the judgment of the court of appeal below which has failed to follow the procedure of Order XLI, Rule 31 of the CPC in deciding an appeal i.e. by failure to state (a) the points for the determination (b) the decision thereon and (c) the reasons for the decision?
• Whether the order of this Court in M.A. No.261 of 1977 the question of order of District Judge, Gaya operating as res judicata did not arise, rather the order of the District Judge, Gaya would be deemed to have been merged in the order of this Court under the theory of merger of the order?
• Whether the appellate court below erred in finding that Sri Vishnupad Temple was a public trust rather than holding that it was a private temple of Gayawal Brahmins?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT(S):

• The ancient scriptures and religious texts, which purportedly establish the Vishnupad temple as the rightful property of the Gayawal Brahmins.
• References to texts like the Agni Puran and Vayu Puran were made to substantiate their historical connection to the temple.
• The longstanding tradition of the Gayawal Brahmins managing the affairs of the Vishnupad temple, from collecting income to performing rituals and ceremonies, the Brahmins have maintained sole authority over the temple's administration and operations.
• Rani Ahilya Bai's construction of the Vishnupad temple is a testament to the appellants’ claim.
• The construction was undertaken on behalf of the Gayawal Brahmins, indicating a recognition of their spiritual authority and ownership rights over the temple premises.
• The Vishnupad temple, by its nature and historical context, is not open to unrestricted access by the public.
• That access and participation in temple rituals are traditionally reserved for the Gayawal Brahmins and select devotees, reinforcing the temple's private ownership status.
• Interference by local authorities and other entities attempting to assert control violated their religious freedoms and undermined their historical and customary rights as the temple's custodians.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:

• The Vishnupad temple should be classified as a public religious trust rather than a private institution.
• The temple's accessibility to all Hindus, regardless of caste or lineage, as evidence of its public trust status.
• The temple's primary purpose, facilitating pilgrimage and religious observance, extends to the entire Hindu community, rather than being restricted to specific Brahmin families like the Gayawal Brahmins.
• The involvement of external priests in conducting rituals and personnel suggests a more inclusive and publicly managed institution, rather than one controlled solely by the Gayawal Brahmins.
• The temple's historical origins do not confer exclusive ownership rights to any particular group, especially considering its evolving role as a pan-Indian pilgrimage site.
• The allegations of undue interference by local authorities were refuted, maintaining that any regulatory measures undertaken were in the interest of preserving the temple's cultural and religious significance for the broader Hindu community.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:

• The Supreme Court opined that the appellate court has the authority to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court.
• The first appeal allows parties the right to rehear the case on both questions of fact and law.
• It is essential for a court to provide a reasoned order, including narration of facts, issues, submissions by parties, legal principles, and reasons for conclusions. A lack of reasoning can prejudice the parties.
• Precedents of Union of India v. Jai Prakash Singh & Ors. and Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, were cited to justify the reasoning.
• The first appellate court provided reasons for its decision, citing various sources such as "Hindu Law and Religious Charitable Trust," Balmiki Ramayan, Bihar Gazetteer, and other relevant materials.
• The specific reasons discussed in the impugned judgment are not reproduced in this context.
• The Supreme court found no perversity in the impugned judgment.
• It stated that the first appellate court followed the procedure outlined in Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure in deciding the appeal.
• Citing the case of Sajjadanashin Sayed Md. B.E. Edr.(D) by Lrs. V. Musa Dadabhai Ummer & Ors, the Court opined that the determination of directly in issue and collateral or incidental matters depends on the facts of each case.
• A crucial test is whether the court deems the adjudication of the issue essential for its decision.
• The Supreme Court stated that both the trial court and the first appellate court had jurisdiction to decide whether the Vishnupad temple trust was private or public.
• The issue of following the procedure under Section 29(2) of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950, was addressed by the Division Bench of the Court, and its decision must be considered final and binding.
• Upon considering the origin of the temple, the rights exercised by devotees, and contributions made by the public, it was concluded that Vishnupad temple is a religious public trust, not private property of the Gayawal Brahmins.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court that the Vishnupad temple is a public trust. The substantial questions of law raised against the appellants were decided against them. The second appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the first appellate court were confirmed. The Court laid directives for the litigation costs to be borne by the parties. Any interlocutory applications were closed and the order to maintain status quo was lifted. The lower Court records were ordered to be returned promptly.