Holding

A society formed for religious purposes qualifies as a charitable society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and a temple and its associated facilities on a 90‑year lease constitute a public religious endowment, permitting appointment of non‑hereditary trustees under Section 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951.

Summary

The Hindu public sued Rajdhani Puja Samithi, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, alleging that the temples, mandap, library, shops and other structures on a 90‑year government lease constitute a public religious endowment. The Society argued that it was a secular body, that a society could not be formed for religious purposes, and that a temple on leasehold land could not be a public temple. The Supreme Court held that religious purposes fall within the charitable purposes contemplated by the Societies Registration Act, that the festivals had been publicly celebrated since 1949, and that a lease of 90 years is sufficient to host a public temple. Consequently, the entire leasehold property, including ancillary buildings, was deemed a religious endowment, justifying the appointment of non‑hereditary trustees under Section 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. The appeal of the Hindu public was allowed, the Society’s appeals were dismissed, and the Deputy Commissioner’s order was restored.

Issues considered

Whether a society can be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for religious purposes as charitable purposes.
Whether the inclusion of secular activities in the society’s aims transforms the trust into a secular one.
Whether a temple situated on lease‑hold land can be a public temple.
Whether the High Court was correct in limiting the religious endowment to the temples alone, excluding the mandap, library, shops and other structures.
Whether appointment of non‑hereditary trustees under Section 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 is valid.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 91, s. 92
Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951s. 27
Societies Registration Act, 1860s. 1, s. 20

Subjects

Hindu religious endowmentpublic templeleasehold landSocieties Registration Actcharitable purposeEvidence Act oral evidencenon‑hereditary trusteesSection 27Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act

Judgment

~-~ HINDU PUBLIC AND ANR. A
v.
RAJDHANI PUJA SAMITHEE AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 16, 1999

[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] B
,,
I< Hindu Law:

Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 :

Religious endowment~Public temple-Durga Puja and other religious c
festivals celebrated on Government land since 1949-Later a Society was
registered and lease of the very land obtained from Government for 90 years
for the said.religious purposes-'l71ereafter, Puja Mandap and temples were
constmcted from public donations and religious festivals were celebrated
regularly year after year-Held, temples are intended to be public temples in D
,.. which every member of the Hindu community entitled to enter as of light and
ent1y not rest1icted to the members of the Society-Fact that membership of
the Society is not restricted to any panicular religious community makes no
difference-Durga Puja and other festivals are intended for the Hindu Public.

Section 27-Religious endowment~overnment land obtained on E
lease for 90 years and temples, Puja Mandap, shops, library, dhannshala,
guesthouse, office rooms etc., constmcted on such land from public dona-
tion~Held, appeal calling for public donations clinchingly establishes that
the Mandap, shops, garden, library, Dhannshala, guest house, office rooms
and temples are all pan of religious endowment~Hence, appointment of
F
..... non-hereditary tntstees under S. 27 lightly made.

Religious endowment~Public temples-Held, even assuming the
proposition that a temple in order to be a public temple must be constntcted
on land of which the founders are owners to be correct, still that proposition
cannot apply to land leased for as long a period as a years. G
,,.
Evidence Act, 1872 : Sections 91 and 92.
.. .......••
Oral evidence-Adducing of-Held, can be adduced to show that the
recitals in a deed are nominal or not intended to be acted upon or that they
are not meant to alter the existing state of affairs-Hence, oral evidence to H
635
-,.,--
\

636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.
A show that a Society's main concem is celebration of Durga Puja and other -+.
festivals can be adduced.

Societies Registration Act, 1860 : Preamble and Sections 1 and 20.

"Chmitable pwposes''---Meaning and scope of-Held, includes religious
B pwposes also.

WordS and Phrases :
-i '
"Chmitable pwposes"-Meaning of-In the context of Preamble to, and
·Sections 1 and 20 of, the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
c The appellant celebrated Durga Puja and other religions festivals on
Government land since 1949. Later a Society was registered and the
Government granted a lease of the very land for 90 years for. the said
religious purposes. An appeal was also. issued to the public to contribute
generously for these religious activities. Thereafter, temples, Puja Man-
D daps, shop rooms, library, dharmshala, guesthouse, office rooms etc. were
constructed from the public donations and religious festivals were
celebrated regularly year after year. The membership of the Society was
-"'
not restricted to any particular community. Certain social and cultural
purposes were also included in the aims and objects of the Society.
E Disputes arose between the members of the Society and the Assistant
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments (HRE) rejected the oral
evidence of the witnesses of the 'Hindu Public' regarding the aims and
objects of the Society in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act,
1872. However, the Assistant commissioner, HRE declared the temples as
F public temples and appointed non-hereditary trustees under Section 27 of
the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. .The Deputy Commis- ...
sioner, URE allowed the appeal of the 'Hindu Public' and held that not
only the temples but also the remaining land and buildings were part of
the endowment. However, the High Court held that only the places where
deities were installed and the Puja Mandap were public temples and other
G
parts of the leasehold land were not part of religious endowment.. Hence ·
this appeal.
-"
,....- '
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the temples were
private temples meant for the members of the Society only, that no Society
H could be registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1_860 for religious
HINDU PUBLIC v. RAJDHANI PUJA SAMITHEE 637

purposes as the said purposes were not 'charitable purposes' under the A
Preamble to, and Sections 1 and 20, of the said Act; and that a temple in
order to be a public temple must be constructed on land of which the
{ founders were owners and not on leasehold land.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
B
HELD : 1.1. The temples established were intended to be public
temples in which every member of the Hindu community was entitled to
enter as ofright and entry was not restricted to the members of the Society.
The fact that the membership of the Society was not restricted to any
particular religious community makes no difference. Membership is one C
thing and nature of the property, which the Society manages is another
thing. Durga Puja and other festivals were intended for the Hindu Public.
(648-B; 645-E]
1.2. Oral evidence could be adduced to show that the recitals in a
deed were nominal or were not intended to be acted upon or that they were D
not meant to alter the existing stall: of affairs. Oral evidence could,
therefore, be adduced under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, 1872
to show that the Society's main concern was the celebration of the Durga
Puja festivals etc. and that other activities were subsidiary. [646-C-D]

2. The words "charitable purposes" used in the Preamble to, and E
Sections 1 and 20 of, the Societies Registration Act, 1860 are to be under-
stood as including religious purposes also. (643-C]

Anjuman lslamia of Muttra v. Nasirnddin, (1906) ILR 28 All 384 and
Khaji Muhammed Hussain Sahib v. Masjiday Melunood Jamait Managi,ng F
Committee, Puddupet, AIR (1940) Mad 167, approved.

CIT v. Pemsel, (1891) AC 531 (581), referred to.

3. Even assuming the proposition that a temple in order to be a
public temple must be constructed on land of which the founders were G
owners to be correct, still the said proposition cannot apply to land leased
for as long a period as 90 years. (648-D]

4. The appeal calling for public donations clinchingly establishes
that the Mandap, shops, garden, library and dharmshala or guesthouse H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
A and office rooms etc. were all meant for religious purposes of the Hindu ~-
Community and were part of the religious endowment. Hence, non-
hereditary trustees were rightly appointed under Section 27 of the Orissa
Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. [649-GH]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2546 of
B 1992 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.91 of the Orissa High
Court in M.A. No. 88 of 1990.

C Janaranjan Das for the appellant in C.A. No. 2546/92 Vinoo Bhagat
for the Appellant in CA Nos. 2547-48/92.

Vinoo Bhagat for the Respondent in C.A. No. 2546/92.

Janaranjan Das and R.K. Mehta for the Respondent in C.A. Nos.
D 2547-48/92.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. These three Civil appeals arise out of
the same judgment ofthe High Court and can be disposed of together.
E Civil Appeal No.2546 of 1992 has been filed by the 'Hindu Public' through
their representative Sri K.C. Malla, Advocate Bhubaneshwar, Orissa. The
said Advocate also figures as the 2nd appellant. Civil Appeals Nos.2547-48
of 1992 have been filed by Rajdhani Puja Samithee (hereinafter called the
'Society'), on behalf of itself and also representing appellants nos. 2 to 4,
F the Deities Sri Bhubaneswar, Sri Bhubaneswari and Sri Hanuman.

The following are the facts:

In 1949, a group of persons started Durga Puja, Laxmi and Kali Puja
and related festivals in Bhubaneshwar near the Raj Mahal Chhat. Later, at
G any rate from 1955, these religious festivals and pujas were shifted to an
open place belonging to Government, opposite to the Market building. In
that year, an informal Committee came into being. D~mations were being
received for the aforesaid purposes from public as is clear from Exhibit F.
With a view to have a permanent place for these pujas, a group of persons
H from among the organisers of these festivals and pujas, formed into the
HINDU PUBLIC v. RAJDHANI PUJA SAMITHEE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 639

Durga Puja Samithee and registered it as a Society on 21.1.1960 under the A
Societies Registration Act, 1860 {Act 21 of 1860) with a Memorandum of
Association which included cultural and other activities also besides
religious activities. The Society then applied to the Government of Orissa
for grant of land for conducting these pujas and religious festivals. Govern-
ment of Orissa granted a lease on 17.9.1960 at Rs.1 as rent. Initially the
lease was for 30 years but it was later extended for over a period of 90
B
years. In 1977, a part of the land was acquired for road \videning but
another piece of equal area was granted under a deed Exhibit 5 dated
8.11.1977. In 1965, construction of the Durga Mandap took place on the
leasehold property. During 1969-1970, shop rooms were constructed and
in the same year temples for Hanuman, Radha Krishan, Durga etc. were c
constructed. During this period, an appeal {Ext.F) was issued to the public
to contribute generously for the deities and the temples. That appeal refers
to the religious activities right from 1949. According to the appellants, this
Appeal to the public clinchingly proves that the entire leasehold land was
intended to be and was used as a religious endowment. In 1973, it is said D
that a Puja Mandap was constructed. On 28.5.1974 as per Ex.A, printed
annual report for the years 1973 and 1974 was approved at the General
Body Meeting. The members of the Society were then 67. According to the
'Hindu Public', this Report also confirmed the public nature of the temples
and other constructions on the leased land.
E
At that stage disputes arose between the members of the Society.
The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, issued notice
on 27.1.1978 to the Society, to produce records in connection with the
temple. On 4.5.1978, the Vice President of the Society was asked to appear
before the authority with records failing which non hereditary trustees
under section 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 F
(hereinafter called the 'Act') would be appointed. On 27.5.78, the Society
informed him that there was no deity, either Radha Krishan or Durga
installed in the premises. On 2.6. 78, Deities of Sri Bhubaneswar and
Bhubaneswari were installed in the constructed temples 1 and 2. On
2.8.1978, the Assistant Commissioner issued notice (Ext.25) directing the G
Endowments Inspector to inspect the premises and submit a report.
,;
•·--1 At that stage, on 30.9.78, the Governing Body is said to have
amended the bye laws (as per Ex.2A) with the object of preventing the
Endowment Department from interfering with the Society. On 29.10.78, the
Society's Secretary wrote a letter to the Commissioner, HRE denying that H
'(

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A the institution was a religious institution.
The Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 12.1.1979 appoint-
ing non-hereditary trustees under section 27 of the Act. The Society then
filed O.A. No.49/79 under section 41 for stay of the order passed under
section 27. Thereafter there were various orders passed by the Department
B and ultimately Writ petition N o.774 of 1979 W9S filed by the Society on
8.9.80. That writ petition was disposed of by staying the order under section
27 and directing disposal of Society's application under section 41.

Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner passed an elaborate order
C on 6.3.1981 declaring the temples in which the deities were installed, as a
public temple. The Society was declared as the hereditary trustee. But so
far as the remaining part of the leasehold land and the buildings thereon
were concerned, it was held that they were not part of the endowment.
There were two appeals FA No.17/84 and FA 20 of 1984 to the Deputy
· Commissioner, one by the Hindu Public and the other by the Society. The
D Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 30.12.1989, allowed the appeal of
the Hindu Public and held that the temples as well as the remaining land ~
and buildings were part of the endowment. The FA 17/84 was allowed and
FA 20/84 was dismissed.

Against the said order of the Deputy Commissioner the Society filed
E two appeals namely Misc. Appeals 88 and 89 of 1990. The High Court
allowed the appeals in part and in effect, restored . the orders of the
Assistant Commissioner stating that:

"(i) places where deities Sri Bhubaneswar, Sri Bhubaneswari and
F Hanuman are installed and puja Mandap are religious institutions
being temples;

(ii) other parts of leasehold areas are not parts of the temple and
are also not proved to be religious endowments;

G (iii) Major portion of the income including monthly rent of the
shop rooms is religious endowment though there is no immovable
property of the religious institution; r·
..
I
I
(iv) What portion of the income and funds of the Samity are
H religious endowments would be examined afresh by the Assistant
HINDU PUBLIC v. RAJDHANI PUJA SAMITHEE [M. JAGANNADHA RA~, J.J 641

Commissioner; and A
(v) the Samity is not wholly secular in character being partly of
religious character."

On these findings, the High Court remanded the application under section
41 for the limited purpose of determining the portion of the funds of the B
Samithee which should go to the religious endowment.

It is against the above orders of the High Court that the 'Hindu
Public' has filed Civil Appeal No.2546 of 1992 while the Society has filed
Civil Appeals Nos. 2547-48 of 1992.
c
Learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No.2546 of 1992
Sri Jana Ranjan Das contended that the entire leasehold property including
the Mandap, Library, shop rooms etc. constituted endowment property and
that the High Court was wrong in confining the endowment to the temples
alone. The Society was not secular in character as contended by the D
Society.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Society, Sri Vinoo
Bhagat contended that the Society was secular in character, that the
temples were private temples meant for the members of the Society, that
the rest of the leasehold was, in any event, not endowment property, that, E
in fact, the registration of the Society under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 could not be for religious purposes. It was also contended that if a
temple is constructed on lease hold land, because of the right of resump-
tion at the end of the term, such a temple cannot be a public temple.

On the above contentions, the following four points arise for con-
F
sideration:

( 1) Whether a Society can be registered under the Societies Registra-
tion Act (Act 21 of 1860) for religious purposes treating such purposes as
part of 'Charitable purposes' as mentioned in the preamble and sections 1 G
and 20 of the abovesaid Act?

(2) Whether the puja and religious festivals were being carried on in
this very premises since 1949 and if so, whether the inclusion of certain
social and cultural purposes in the aims and objects of the Society at the
time of its subsequent registration in 1960,- alongwith the religious activities H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 1 S.C.R.
A - was intended to transform the nature of the trust from religious into one
of a secular character?

(3) Whether a temple located on lease-hold land could not be a
public temple?

B (4) Whether the High Court was right in setting aside the order of
the Deputy Commissioner in part and restricting the public trust only to
the temples and not to the library, mandap, panda!, shops and other
constructions and in virtually restoring the order of the Assistant Commis-
. ?
s10ner.

C Point I:
Learned counsel for the Society contended i!l the Society's Appeals
that no Society could be registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 for 'religious purposes' either in whole or in part, inasmuch as the
said purposes would not be 'charitable purposes' falling within the
D preamble to the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act 21 of 1860) and
sections 1 and 20 of the said Act.

The Preamble to the above Act reads as follows:

"Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for improv-
E ing the legal condition of societies established for the promotion
of literature, science, or the fine arts, or for the diffusion of useful
knowledge, the diffusion of political education, or for chmitable
pwposes, it is enacted as follows-- "

Again, Section 1 of the Act 21/1860 reads as follows:
F
"S.1-Societies fanned by memorandum of association and registra-
tion- Any seven or more persons associated for any literary, scien-
tific, or chmitable pw7JOse, or for any such purpose as is described
in section 20 of this Act, may, by subscribing their names to a
G memorandum of association, and filing the same with the Registrar
of Joint-stock Companies, form themselves into a society under
this Act."

Section 20 of the said Act reads as follows:

H "S.20-To what societies Act applies - The following societies may be
HINDU PUBLIC v. RAJDHANI PUJA SAMITIIEE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.) 643

registered under this Act:- A

Cha1itable societies, the military orphan funds or societies estab-
lished at the several presidencies of India, societies established for
the promotion of science, literature, or the fine arts for instruction,
the diffusion of useful knowledge, the diffusion of political educa-
tion, the foundation or maintenance of libraries or reading-rooms B
for general use among the members or open to the public or public
museums and galleries of paintings and other works of art, collec-
tions of natural history, mechanical and philosphical inventions,
instruments, or designs."
c
According to the learned counsel for the Society, the words 'charitable
purposes' used in the Preamble and sections 1 and 20 of Act 21/1860 do
not include 'religious purposes'.

In our opinion, this contention is not well founded. More than ninety D
years ago, such a contention raised under Act 21 of 1860 was negatived by
the Allahabad High Court in Anjuman Islamia of Muttra v. Nasintddin,
(1906) ILR 28 All. 384). It was contended in that case that the registration
of a society called 'Anjuman Islamia' under Act 21 of 1860 was not
permissible as the society was formed for 'religious purposes only' and not
for charitable purposes. The Allahabad High Court rejected the said E
contention and held that a society for religious purposes would ordinarily
be a society for charitable purposes. A similar question arose before the
Madras High Court i~ Klzaji Muhammed Hussain Sahib v. Masjiday Meh-
mood Jamait Managing committee, Puddupet, AIR (1940) Madras 167). A
Division Bench consisting of Wadsworth and Venkataramana Rao, JJ. held F
that the Act 21/1860 was passed in 1860 when, according to English law, a
gift for the advancement of religion or promotion of religious worship was
treated as a charitable purpose and, therefore, a society formed for such a
purpose would be a charitable society under Act 21/1860. The only condi-
tion was that it should be for the benefit of the public. No doubt, in some
statutes enacted subsequent to Act 21 of 1860, the legislature used the G
words 'charitable' and 'religious' but the definition of these words was
expressly stated to be for the purposes of those Acts. The subsequent
legislation, the Madras High Court held, would not be helpful in interpret-
ing the words 'charitable' in Act 21 of 1860. The real question was: "What
did the term mean in 1860"? We are in agreement with the view of the H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 1 S.C.R.
A Allahabad and Madras High Courts. In fact, Lord McNaughten in his
celebrated judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pemsel, (1891) AC
531 (581)) said that charitable purposes which came within the language
and spirit of the statute of Elizabeth (43 Eliz ch 4) could be grouped into
four heads (i) relief of poverty, (ii) education, (iii) advancement of religion
and (iv) other purposes beneficial to the community not coming under any
B
of the preceding heads. The words in Act 21/1860 are, therefore, to be
understood as including religious purposes also. Point No.1 is held against
the society. t

Points 2 & 3:
c
In the present case, the facts as founci by the Deputy Commissioner
and as may be gathered from the record are that there were religious
activities relating to Durga Puja etc. and festivals right from 1949. Initially
they were being conducted by the members of the public of Bhubaneswar
D at Raj Mahal Chhat. Later on, at any rate from the year 1955, a committee
was formed and these Pujas and festivals were being performed on govern-
ment land lying opposite to the Market building. Donations were being
collected from the public, as is clear from Ext. F, for the purpose of the
said pujas right from 1949. Thereafter, in 1959 a public meeting was held
and it was decided that the Government of Orissa should be approached
E for assignment of the very land in which these functions and festivals were
being conducted. For that purpose, it was decided to register a Society.
Accordingly the Society in question was registered on 21.1.1960 and the
Government was moved for lease of this very land for religious purposes.
A lease was granted on 17.9.1960 for 30 years (later amended as for 90
F years). A part of the land was acquired for a road and an equal extent was
granted by deed dated 8.11.1977. Thereafter these functions were regularly
going on year after year in the leasehold land. Subsequently donations were
received. In 1965, the Durga Mandap was constructed. During 1969-70
shop rooms were constructed. In 1971, the Hanuman temple was con-
-
structed. Later temples of Radha Krishan, Durga etc. were constructed:-
G Then in 1973, Pnja Mandap was constructed. The evidence on record is
that they were constructed from public donations and subscriptions. No
evidence was adduced that the members alone personally contributed.

Even so, learned counsel for the Society submitted that the temples
H were not public temples inasmuch as there was no restriction that only
HINDU PUBLIC v. RAJDHANI PUJA SAMITHEE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 645

~·~ Hindus would be eligible to become members of the Society. Further, it A
was contended that the aims and objects of the Society were both secular
and religious in character. The aims and objects of the Society read as
follows:

"(a) The Samittee shall, as far as practicable, provide common
place for meeting of the members of the Samittee, for purposes of B
recreation, discussion of literary, cultural and common problems,
t encouragement of thrift, advancement of social welfare ideas and
protection of the interests of its members.

(b) celebrate social festivals like Durga Puja etc., advance other
objects, provide facilities like Mandap, Temple, Parks, Educa-
c
tional, Mental and Physical Institutions, Library, Charitable dis-
pensary, rest rooms and commercial centres for the interest of the
members"

Learned counsel for the Society contended that even though para (b) D
of the aims and objects referred to Durga Puja etc., still para (a) dealt with
several secular activities and further, the concluding words in para (b ),
namely, 'for the interest of the members' meant that the Durga Puja etc.
were restricted to members only.

In our view, the fact that the membership {)f the Society was not E
restricted to any particular religious· community makes no difference.
Membership is one thing and nature of the property which the Society
manages is another thing. In fact, as pointed out by the Deputy Commis-
sioner, members professing Islam and Christianity were· never inducted
from 1960 to 1980. It was only in 1980, long after the disputes started and
· notices were issued by the Department, that a few members were inducted F
from other communities. Even those professing Islam were not allowed into
the temple part of the endowment. It is true that the last part of clause (b)
of the aims and objects uses the words 'and commercial centres for the use
of the members'. It is not clear whether the words 'for the use of members'
qualifies only the words 'commercial centres'. In fact, we cannot think of G
a charitable dispensary confined only to members of the Society. In the
light of the above material, it cannot be said that the Durga puja etc. were
pujas intended only for members.

We shall approach the question from another angle. It has been
found that right from 1949, these festivals were being conducted by the H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 1 S.C.R.
A Hindu Community and at any rate from 1955 at this very place. Public
donations and subscriptions were being collected. Then lease for this land
was applied. Lease was 1:,rranted. If that be so, can some of the members of
the public registering a Society claim that the festivals were for members
of the Society only or that the society wanted to use the land mainly for
secular purposes and incidentally for these pujas and festivals, merely by
B addition of para (a) in the aims and objects, in addition to these pujas in
para (b).

It is in the evidence of witnesses examined on behalf of the 'Hindu
Public' before the Assistant Commissioner that para (a) of the aims and
C objects was introduced alongwith para (b) so as to ensure that the request
for grant of lease of this very land was not rejected by Government on the
ground that land could not be leased exclusively for religious purposes. On
this aspect, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the oral evidence- as
inadmissible as it contradicts the recitals in the deed of registration of the
Society in view of sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. In our view, this
D is not correct in law. Oral evidence could be adduced to show that the
recitals in a deed were nominal or were not intended to be acted upon or
that they were not meant to alter the existing state of affairs. Oral evidence
could•therefore be adduced to show that the Society's main concern was
the celebration of the Durga puja festivals etc. and that other activities were
E subsidiary. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was right in relying on this
part of the oial evidence.

Eleven years after the Society was formed, the appeal Ex.F was
issued for donations. It reveals that the main purpose of the Society was
the construction of temples and celebration of these festivals. It states:
F
"Although for last so many days, Sri Sri Sri Durga Puja is being
performed here, yet no special effort has been made for construc-
tion of a permanent mandap and temples for other gods and .,
Goddesses. Although major population in the capital is Hindu, yet
G it is regrettable that a permanent mandap and temples of other
Gods and Goddesses have not yet been· established here. On the
other hand, minority communities like Muslims, christians and Sikhs
have already constructed beautiful permanent Mosque, Church
and Gurudwara. But it has not yet been possible for we Hindus.
H It is most regrettable."
HINDU PUBLIC v. RAJDHANJ PUJA SAMITHEE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO • .I.) 647
In addition, we have the Report of the General Secretary of the year A
--~ 1973 which refers to various activities of the Society. Except the religious
activities, there is no reference to any other activities. The report refers to
puja expenditure, construction of temples for Goddesses, for Mahadev
Temple, construction of Mandap, Kitchen, Court yard and guest house etc.
It states that almost all religious functions like Durga puja, Kali Puja, Laxmi
Puja, Kartikeswar Puja, Rama Navami, Astaprahari, Ganesh Puja, Dolo
B
and Jhulana J atra were being performed. There is also evidence of collec-
tion of subscription through a receipt book from members of the public for
the aforesaid religious purposes and festivals of the Hindu community.

As pointed by the Deputy Commissioner, though the Hanuman C
temple was installed in 1971 and public functions were being performed
throughout, a board was put up for the first time in 1976 by a resolution
dated 26.9.76, that the temple was meant 'for members only'. This was done
after dispute stated among the members. It is, however, in the evidence of
one of the witnesses who was a Muslim (Ext.A.P.W.5) and was engaged
for some decoration that after the decoration, he as well as other non-Hin- D
dus, were not allowed to enter the premises of the deity. The Deputy
• ;.. Commissioner held:

"This explodes the theory propounded by the petitioners that
functions like Durga Puja, Kali Puja, and Laxmi Puja etc. are E
secular and social functions."

So far as the resolutions allowing certain other communities to use the
mandap or other buildings for performance of their functions, the Deputy
Commissioner held that· from the evidence, it was clear that the documents
evidencing the said resolutions were subsequently fabricated and were F
antedated. He further pointed out that for the first time people professing
·-,, Islam or Christianity were inducted as members during 1980 long after the
notices were issued by the Assistant Commissio.1er. He also held that the
Samithi 'drastically amended the provisions of the Samithi's constitution',
during the pendency of the case, in an attempt to take away the religious G
character of the institution. The amendments were made with oblique
motives.
,.,.
~ ---1 On the basis of the aforesaid facts both prior to 1960 and after 1960,
and conclusions of the Deputy Commissioner it must be held that the
predominant purpose in the formation of the society and grant of lease was H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R.

A for religious purposes. The other purposes were not the dominant purposes
and the addition of the aims and activities in para (a) was not intended to
change the basic religious character of the trust.

From the above material, it is clear that the temples established were
intended to be public temples in which every member of the Hindu
B community was entitled to enter as of right and entry was not restrieted to
the members of the Society. Point 2 is held against the Society.

Point 3:

It was argued for the Society, that a temple in order to be a public
C temple must b~ constructed in land of which the founders were owners and
in case the land was leasehold land, it must be held that it was not intended
to be a public temple. According to him there cannot be a public trust
whose life will be coterminus with the expiry of the term of a leasehold
land.
D On facts, we do not find any substance in this contention. It _is an
admitted fact that the Government granted a lease of land for 90 years in
1960. Assuming that the preposition contended for is correct, we are of the
view that the said proposition cannot apply to land leased for as long a
period as 90 years. The point is rejected.
E
Point 4:

It was contended for the 'Hindu Public' by its learned counsel that
the High Court and the Assistant Commissioner were wrong in thinking
that the public endowment was confined only to the temples and did not
F extend to the mandap, the library, shop-rooms and other constructions .

. Apart from the evidence to which we have already referred the
contents in the public appeal of 1971 for donations, Ex.F, proves that not
only the temples but the mandap, the shop rooms, the library and other
constructions were part of the religious endowment. It states that the
G Government granted lease of one and half acres at the Central place of the
new capital in front of the market to the Society for construction of Durga
Mandap and other constructions, 11 years before this appeal. From 1949,
every year, on this place, public worship of Sri Durga, Laxmi and Kali were
being performed. Worship of Deity Kartikeswar started two years before.
H Sri Ram Navami, Pana Sankranti, Ekadashi, Sibaratri, Bhagabat Janma,
HINDU PUBLIC v. RAJDHANI PUJA SAMITHEE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 649

Ganesh Puja, Saraswati Puja etc. were to be performed. Two years before, A
Hanuman temple had been established. The appeal says that "although for
the last so many days, Sri Sri Sri Durga Puja is being performed here, yet .
no special effort has been made for construction of a permanent mandap
and temples for other Gods and Goddesses". This shows that the Mandap
was for Durga Puja and not, as contended by the learned counsel for the
B
Society, to be used by all other communities for various functions like
marriages etc. The Appeal further states that all other communities,
Mohammedan and Christian communities were having their own buildings
in Bhubaneswar. So far as the other constructions are concerned, the
Appeal states:
c
"Constructions have started here for a permanent Devi Mandap,
compound, 6 permanent shop room and a garden. For this pur-
pose, a small amount of donation has been received. About
Rs.40,000 has been received towards advance rent from prospec-
tive tenants. Besides this, some amount is collected from tenants
of temporary shops. There is proposal for construction of temples D
for deities, Radhakrishna, Sita Rama, Siva and Devi. Minimum
estimated cost for each temple has been fixed at Rs.8,000/-.

There is no libra1y of religious books. Many distinguished
Sadhus, Sanyasis and devotees are' coming here. As there is no E
suitable place for them to stay, they are staying in family houses
contrary to Sastras and in Dhamwsala at Bhubaneswar. So a small
Dharmasala and a library of religious books are essential for
them ..... .

......... there is no permanent public panda/ for religious meetings F
....Those religious institutions who need an office here, the same
can be constructed for them at their expenses."

Ori that basis, public donations were called for. The above appeal, in our
view, clinchingly establishes that the mandap, shops, garden, library and G
D harmsala or guest house and office rooms etc. were all meant for religious
purposes of the Hindu community. There is not a whisper in this appeal .
of any secular purposes or· purposes of other than religious.

In our view, the Deputy Commissioner was right in holding that the
leasehold land, the temples, the mandap, the library, the guest house or H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1999] 1 S.C.R.
A Dharmsala, the office and shops, all of them, formed the endowment. The ~.-
Deputy Commissioner was, right in rejecting all the contentions of the
Society and in appointing non-hereditary trustees under section 27 of the
Endowment Act.

For the aforesaid reasons, Civil Appeal No.2546 of 1992 is allowed
B and the Civil Appeals Nos. 2547-48 of 1992 are dismissed. The order of
the Deputy Commissioner is restored. There will be no order as to costs
in all the appeals.

v.s.s. C.A.No. 2546/92 allowed.
C.A. No. 2547- 48/92 dismissed.

c