http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: HEIR OF DECEASED MAHARAJ PURSHOTTAMLALJIMAHARAJ, JUNAGADCOLL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT:

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/09/1986

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1986 AIR 2094            1986 SCR  (3) 705  1986 SCC  (4) 287        JT 1986   387  1986 SCALE  (2)400  CITATOR INFO :  R          1987 SC2064  (15)

ACT:      Hindu Law of Religious Endowments:      Bombay Public  Trusts Act,  1950: ss.  2(13), 2(17) and 18-Haveli  of  Pushti  Margi  cult-A  temple-Whether  public trust-Tests to be applied.      Guruseva, Pradeshseva  and  Charanseva  bhets-Offerings made at  the feet  of Guru-Distinct  from those  made before deity or  put in Golak-Whether constitute personal income of Guru-Doctrine of Brahma Sambadha.

HEADNOTE:      Shrimad Vallabhacharyaji  was  the  founder  of  Pushti Margi Sampradaya.  Goswami Madhavraiji  was a  direct lineal descendant of  the founder.  He  came  over  to  Junagad  in Saurashtra from  Amreli district of Gujarat in the year 1776 with his  own deity  on the  invitation of the Muslim Nawab. Impressed by  his  attainments  the  Nawab  made  grants  of property both  for residence  as also  cultivation.  On  the property gifted for residential purpose Madhavraiji raised a Haveli. It  housed the  deity in the ground floor and in the first floor  thereof Goswami  Madhavraiji and  after him his descendants and  members of  their families have been living generation after generation.      The Bombay  Public Trusts  Act, 1950  was  extended  to Saurashtra area  of Gujarat  State in  the  year  1961.  The appellant. the  widow  of  Maharajshree  Purshottamlalji,  a lineal descendant  of the founder, who had been in charge of the management  of the  Haveli and its assets, both moveable and immoveable,  ever since  the demise  of her  husband  in 1955,  made   an  application   to  the   Assistant  Charity Commissioner under  s.  18  of  the  Act  in  October,  1961 contending that  the  Haveli  and  its  properties  did  not constitute   a   public   trust.   The   Assistant   Charity Commissioner and  the Charity  Commissioner found  that  the institution was 706 a public  trust and  that all  the forty  items of  property belonged to the trust.      In appeal  by the  appellant, the  High Court held that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

(i) the  Haveli Mandir was a public trust within the meaning of s. 2(13) read with s. 2(17) of the Act; (ii) the moveable and immoveable  properties which were thirty eight in number belonged to  the trust;  (iii) the appellant was the trustee of the  temple and its properties, and the succession to the trusteeship was  by inheritance  without the sanction of the State, and (iv) Guruseva and Charanseva Bhets offered by the devotees of  Vallabha cult  formed part of the public trust, on the  view that  once Brahma-Sambadha  is established, the Guru  as   also  every   devotee  in   the  cult  loses  his individuality  and   his  very  existence  (apart  from  the physical) merges with the Lord.      In the  appeal to  this Court  intervention by devotees was permitted  mainly on  the ground that the High Court had dealt with  and relied upon religious custom and practice of the Pushti  Margi cult  and the  treatment given by the High Court was  wrong. It  was contended  for the appellants that the bhets to the Guru were offerings to him as distinct from offerings to  the deity  and in consideration of the feature that  the   Vallabha  Sampradayin  Guru  enjoyed  a  special position, these  offerings must  be held  to be  his and not that of the deity.      Allowing  the   appeal  in   part  and  dismissing  the connected appeal, the Court, ^      HELD: 1. Pushti Margi Vaishnavas following the Vallabha Cult are Hindus and the Hindu Law of religious endowments is applicable to  p their  havelies.  lt  was,  therefore,  not necessary in  the instant  case,  to  scan  their  religious philosophy to decide the issue. [711E]      2. The  High Court was right in holding that the Haveli and the  listed thirty-eight items of property constituted a public trust  under the  Bombay Public  Trusts Act, 1950 and that succession  to trusteeship  was by  inheritance without sanction of the State. In reaching that conclusion the Court has scrutinised  the evidence,  both documentary  and  oral, keeping  the   proper  perspective  in  view,  appropriately utilised the  five way test formulated by this Court and the other features  relevant in  determining the  character of a Hindu temple,  and taken  note of  the position that Goswami Maharaj  enjoyed  among  the  devotees  as  their  spiritual leader. In  a dispute  of this  type,  a  single  or  a  few features 707 would not  provide the  conclusive basis for the decision to be arrived  at. A  The entire material has to be scanned and the ultimate  decision has  to rest  on the  sum total view. [715A-B; 714F-G]      Tilkayat Shri  Govindlalji  Maharaj  v.  The  State  of Rajasthan  and  others,  119641  1  SCR  561;  Goswami  Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji  v. Rannchhoddas Kalidas and Ors., [1970] 2 SCR 275;  and Tagore  Law Lectures on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts by Dr. B. K. Mukherjea, refereed to.      3.1 The proceeds of the Guruseva and Pradeshseva do not constitute part of the public trust. [716G]      3.2 Vallabha  and his  descendants  enjoyed  a  special position in  the  community  of  devotees.  They  have  been leading collective  and congregational  prayers  within  the Haveli  and   acting  as  the  religious  preceptor  of  the devotees. It is customary for a devotee to make offerings at the feet  of the  Maharaj when he meets him in the Haveli or during his  visits to  areas coming  within the  territorial limits of the Haveli. [715D-E]      3.3 There  is a  distinction between  an offering  made before the  deity or  put into the Golak and that put at the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

feet of  the Guru. In the earlier case, it is clearly a gift to the deity while in the latter, in the absence of anything more, it  would be  one to the Guru, for what is laid at the feet of  the Guru  is intended  to be an offering to him and not to the deity. [716E]      3.4 The  doctrine of  Brahma-Sambadha is not applicable to the  instant case,  for nothing  has been  shown from the record to  justify the  conclusion that  the Guru  is only a conduit pipe  between the devotee at one end and the Lord on the other  so as  to lead  to an  inference that whatever is offered at  the feet  of the  Guru belongs  to the Lord. The preceptor has  his position  and if he is not a conduit pipe in the  sense stated,  what is  laid  at  his  feet  out  of reverance by the devotee must belong to him. In view thereof the  finding  of  the  High  Court  on  this  issue  cannot, therefore . be sustained . [7l6B-C]      Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha  Swamiar of  Sri Shirur Mutt. [1954] SCR 1005, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 3168 & 3167 of 1986 708      From the  Judgment and  order dated  21.9.1984  of  the Gujarat High Court in First Appeal no. 163 of 1974 and Civil Application No. 9 of 1982.      B.K. Mehta,  A.B. Maniar  and Ms.  Indu Sharma  for the Appellant in C.A. No. 3168 of 1986.      P.H. Parekh  and P.K. Manohar for the Appellant in C.A. No. 3167 of 1986.      S.H. Seth, T.U. Mehta, Vimal Dave, C.D. Kakkad, Ajay. Rajeshwar Rao and M.N. Shroff for the Respondents.      T.S. Krishnamoorthy  Iyer  and  Mukul  Mudgal  for  the Intervener in C.A. No. 3168 of 1986.      Anil K.  Nauriya and  K.L. Hathi  for the Intervener in C.A. No. 3167 of 1986.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RANGANATH MISRA,  J. These two appeals by special leave assail the  judgment of the Gujarat High Court substantially affirming the appellate decision of the Charity Commissioner that the  Pushti Margiya  Moti Havali at Junagad and thirty- eight items  of its  properties constitute  a  public  trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.      The   appellant    is   the    widow   of   Maharajshri Purshottamlalji who  admittedly was  a lineal  descendant of Shrimad Vallabhacharyaji,  the founder  of the  Pushti Margi Sampradaya. Purshottamlalji  passed away  in 1955 and, after him, the  appellant has  been in charge of the management of the Haveli  and its assets both moveable and immoveable. The Bombay Public  Trusts Act, 1950, (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’)  was extended  to Saurashtra  area of the Gujarat State in  the year 1961. In October 1961, the appellant made an application  to the  Assistant  Charity  Commissioner  at Rajkot under  section 18  of the  Act  contending  that  the Haveli and its properties did not constitute a public trust. An inquiry  followed  to  determine  the  character  of  the institution and  the Assistant  Charity Commissioner and the Charity Commissioner found that the institution was a public trust and  all the  forty items of property belonged to that trust. The  High Court  on  appeal  by  the  appellant  has, however, recorded the following findings: 709

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

         (1) Haveli  Mandir at  Junagad is  a public  trust           within the  A meaning  of section  2(13) read with           section 2(17) of the Act.           (2)  The   moveable  and   immoveable   properties           appearing in  the appendices A and in the judgment           of the Charity Commissioner excepting two items of           immoveable property  covered by  Exhibits 265  and           268 belong  to the  trust. In  the absence  of any           challenge against  exclusion of the two items from           the purview  of the trust, the same are no more in           dispute.           (3) The appellant is the trustee of the temple and           its properties,  Succession to  trusteeship is  by           inheritence without  the  sanction  of  the  State           Government.           (4) Guruseva  Bhet and  Charanseva Bhet offered by           the devotees  of Vallabha  cult form  part of  the           public trust.      While recording  these specific findings the High Court has affirmed the findings of the Charity Commissioner on all other issues.      Shrimad Vallabhacharyaji,  the founder  of Pushti Margi Sampradaya is  usually  referred  to  as  Mahaprabhuji.  The lineal descendants  of Mahaprabhuji  are  known  as  Goswami Maharajshree.   Goswami   Madhavraiji,   a   direct   lineal descendant of  the founder of the cult was living at Chittal now in  Amreli district  of Gujarat. Some time in 1776 A.D., the Hindu  Diwan Amarji  of  the  Muslim  Nawab  of  Junagad extended invitation to Madhavraiji to come to Junagad and he came  there  with  his  own  deity.  The  Muslim  Nawab  was impressed by  the attainments of Madhavraiji, made grants of property both  for residence as also cultivation, and on the property gifted  for residential purpose, Madhavraiji raised the Haveli.  It houses  the deity in the ground floor and in the first  floor thereof Goswami Maharajshree and members of his family have been living generation after generation.      Indisputably, the  devotees of  the Sampradaya hold the Maharaj in  great esteem  and reverence  and consider him as the living representative of the Lord.      Before the  High  Court  long  and  detailed  arguments appear to  have been canvassed and on the basis thereof, the High   Court    formulated   the    following   points   for determination: 710           (i) Whether  the Haveli Mandir of Madan Mohanlalji           situated at  Junagad is  a public charitable trust           within the  meaning of  section  2(13)  read  with           section 2(17) of the Act?           (ii)   Whether   the   moveable   and   immoveable           properties described  in appendices  A and  in the           judgment of the Charity Commissioner belong to the           said public trust?           (iii)  What   is  the   mode  of   succession   to           trusteeship of the trust?           (iv) What  are the  sources of  income of the said           trust?      The High  Court went  into the  matter at great length, settled  the   tests  to  be  applied  for  determining  the character of  the  institution  by  carefully  referring  to several decisions  of the  Judicial Committee  of the  Privy Council, different  High Courts and this Court; examined the documentary as  also  the  oral  evidence  analytically  and relied  upon  the  following  features  for  coming  to  the conclusion that  the Haveli  and the thirty-eight properties constituted a public trust:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

         (1) Grants of property by the State of Junagad for           construction of  Haveli and  its upkeep;  gifts of           immoveable  properties   from  time   to  time  by           devotees.           (2)  Donations   for   repairs,   renovation   and           expansion from the devotees of the Sampradaya;           (3) Tablets  placed on  the walls  of  the  Haveli           showing particulars of substantial donations;           (4) Right of darshan enjoyed by devotees at large;           (5)   Holding   of   religious   festivities   and           performances on grand scale;           (6) Placing of Golaks (hundies) in different parts           of the  haveli for  collection of  offerings  from           devotees visiting the temple;           (7)  Service   rendered  by   the   devotees   for           maintenance and upkeep of the haveli;                           MANOHAR 711           (8) Treatment  meted by  the State  over the years           towards A the temple;           (9) The get-up of the Haveli; and           (l0)  The   contents  of   the   application   for           registration of the haveli (Exh. 36) and the stand           of the appellant with reference to the same.      While dealing  with  these  features,  the  High  Court considered certain  other aspects-some  connected  with  the above and others not-and in an elaborate and well-considered judgment came  to the  conclusions which  have already  been indicated.      In this  Court intervention  by devotees  was asked for mainly on  the ground that the High Court had dealt with and relied upon  religious customs  and practices  of the Pushti Margi Cult  and the  treatment given  by the  High Court was wrong. This Court permitted intervention confined to written submissions. Eleven  thousand and  twelve affidavits came to be filled  by the  devotees of  the cult and at the hearing, one of  them on  his persistent  request, was heard for some time. A plea was made that the questions in dispute could be disposed of  without going  at  length  into  the  religious philosophy of  the Cult.  Admittedly Pushti Margi Vaishnavas following the  Vallabha Cult are Hindus and the Hindu law of religious endowments  is applicable to their havelis. It is, therefore, unnecessary to scan their religious philosophy at length to decide the present dispute.      This Court  had occasion  twice to  deal with  disputes relating to  the nature  of temples  of this  cult and it is appropriate that  we refer  to them  at this  stage. A  five Judge Bench  in Tilkayat  Shri Govindlalji  Maharaj  v.  The State of  Rajasthan and  others, [1964] 1 SCR 561 was called upon to  adjudicate the  character of  the famous  Nathdwara Temple. It had been canvassed on behalf of the Tilkayat that it was  against the tenets of the Vallabha School to worship in public temples. This Court held:           "Therefore, we  are  satisfied  that  neither  the           terms nor  the religious practices of the Vallabha           School necessarily  postulates that  the followers           of the  School must  worship in  a private temple,           some temples of this cult may have been private in           the past and some of them may be private even 712           today. Whether  or not  a particular  temple is  a           public temple  must necessarily  be considered  in           the light  of the  relevant facts  relating to it.           There can  be no general rule that a public temple           is prohibited in Vallabha School."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

This conclusion  appeals to  us and  we are  also  bound  to accept the  same as  a correct  proposition. In Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji  v. Rannchhoddas Kalidas and ors., [1970] 2 SCR 275  where the  dispute related  to the character of the Haveli  at   Nadiad,  a   three  Judge  Bench  followed  the conclusion in  Tilkayat’s case  (supra) that  there  was  no restriction on  worship in  public temples  in the  Vallabha tenets. It was further stated:           "Yet another  contention taken  on behalf  of  the           appellant is that the architecture of the building           in which  Gokulnathji is  housed and the nature of           that building  is such as to show that it is not a           public temple. It was urged that building does not           possess any  of the  characteristics  of  a  Hindu           temple. It  has not  even a  dome. This contention           again has  lost much  of its  force in view of the           decision  of  this  Court  refer  red  to  earlier           (Tilakayat’s  case).   Evidence  establishes  that           Vallabha’s  son   and  his   immediate   successor           Vithaleswar  had   laid  down   a  plan   for  the           construction   of    temples   by   the   Vallabha           Sampradayes.  He  did  not  approve  the  idea  of           constructing  rich   and  costly   buildings   for           temples.  Evidently  he  realized  that  religious           temple buildings were not safe under the Mohamedan           rule. For  this reason he advised his followers to           construct temples  of extremely  simple type.  The           external view of those temples gave the appearance           of dwelling  houses. It  appears to  be  a  common           feature of  the temples  belonging to the Vallabha           Sampradayes that  the ground  floor is used as the           place of  worship and  the first  floor is used as           the residence of Goswami Maharaj .. "      The Haveli  at Nadiad  was held  to be  a public  trust notwithstanding its  appearance of  a residential  house and the fact  that in  the upper  floor, the Goswami Maharaj had his living  abode. In  Mahalaxmi’s case  (supra) this  Court again said:           "If a  temple is  proved. to  have originated as a           public temple,  nothing more  is necessary  to  be           proved to show that it is a public temple but if a           temple is proved to have 713           originated as  a private  temple or  its origin is           unknown or A lost in antiquity, then there must be           proof to  show that  it is  being used as a public           temple. In  such cases  the true  character of the           particular temple  is  decided  on  the  basis  of           various circumstances.  In these  cases the Courts           have to  address themselves  to various  questions           such as:           (i) Is  the temple  built in  such imposing manner           that it  may prima  facie appear  to be  a  public           temple?           (ii) Are  the members  of the  public entitled  to           worship in that temple as of right?           (iii)  Are   the  temple  expenses  met  from  the           contributions made by the public?           (iv) Whether  the sevas  and utsavas  conducted in           the temple  are those  usually conducted in public           temples?           (v) Have  the management  as well  as the devotees           been treating that temple as a public temple?"      The High  Court has  found in this case that the Haveli was a public temple from the inception. It took into account

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

the fact  that the haveli was built upon the land donated by the Ruler of Junagad and for its upkeep sumptuous provisions had been made by the State. The material on record justifies the inference  drawn by  the High  Court that  when  Goswami Madhavraiji came  to Junagad  in response  to the invitation carrying his  deity with him, he obviously did not come with the mental  frame of  raising a haveli. That became possible on account  of the  gifts made  by the  Ruler. Therefore, it would be quite appropriate to affirm the finding of the High Court that  the haveli  was built  out of the grants made by the Nawab  and gifts  and offerings  made  by  the  devotees around that time.      Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants seriously challenged the finding of the High Court that the haveli and its properties  constituted a  public trust. We have given a close look to the judgment and are of the view that the High Court scrutinised  the evidence-both  documentary and  oral- keeping the  proper perspective  in view.  The five way test formulated by this Court in Mahalaxmi’s case (supra) and the other relevant features referred to by Dr. B.K. Mukherjea in the 714 Tagore Law Lectures on Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts for  use as  tests in  determining the character of a Hindu temple  have been  appropriately utilised  by the High Court while  assessing the evidence. The large contributions by the  devotees evidenced by tablets placed on the walls of the haveli,  contributions by  members of the public for its repairs and  expansion, the  clear  evidence  regarding  the manner and  scale in which festivities are celebrated at the haveli, public grants of property made for the upkeep of the institution, interference  with the management of the haveli by the State when a minor succeeded to trusteeship, the fact that the  members of  the  public  had  darshan  freely  and without  let   or  hindrance  from  the  appellant  and  her predecessors  (the   two  instances  of  obstruction  having rightly been  rejected by the High Court), placing of golaks or  hundies  at  different  places  within  the  haveli  for collection of  contributions from  the  devotees,  that  the State had  either remitted  the rent  or adopted a quit rent basis for the lands granted to the haveli, the fact that the Junagad  State   levied  and   collected  a   cess  for  the maintenance of  the haveli,  the other havelis or temples of the Sampradaya  under the control of the disputed haveli had been accepted  as public  trusts and were registered as such and the  like were justifiedly utilised by the High Court as features and  materials for  holding that  the haveli  was a public trust.  The High  Court did take into account certain other  features   from  which  support  was  sought  by  the appellant for  her stand that the haveli was a private trust and did  not come within the ambit of the Act. These are the features  like  some  of  the  grants  being  personal,  the Barkhali Abolition  compensation not  having been settled on annuity basis, the upper portion of the haveli being used as private residence  of the Goswamiji, the mode of accounting, the income  being shown as personal in the returns under the Income-tax Act and the like. We find that the High Court has also appropriately  taken note  of the position that Goswami Maharaj enjoyed among the devotees as their spiritual leader and upon an assessment of the total evidence, it has reached its conclusions.  In a  dispute of  this type; a single or a few features  would not provide the conclusive basis for the decision to  be arrived  at. On  the other  hand, the entire material has  to be  scanned and the ultimate conclusion has to rest on the sum total view. That is exactly what the High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Court has done.      The tests  to be  applied for deciding whether a temple is public  or private  have been  laid down  in a  catena of cases by  this Court  and reference  to  them  was  made  by learned counsel  for the  parties in  course of the hearing. Since we are recording a judgment of affirmance 715 and the tests are well-known, we do not propose to advert to them A  now. In  agreement with  the High Court we hold that the Haveli  and the  listed thirty-eight  items of  property constitute a  public trust  under the Act and we also affirm the finding that succession to trusteeship is by inheritance without sanction of the State.      We  have   now  to   examine  the  correctness  of  the conclusion reached by the High Court regarding the character of the guruseva bhet and charanseva bhet. The High Court has found that these also are a part of the source of income and according to  it, these  constitute an  important source  of income of  the trust.  It is  the  accepted  situation  that Vallabha and  his descendants  enjoyed a special position in the community  of the  devotees. In Tilkayat’s case. (supra) this Court pointed out:           "It is significant that this denomination does not           recognise the  existence of Sadhus or Swamis other           than the descendants of Vallabha . . . " It is the practice of Goswami Maharaj to lead collective and congregational prayers  within the  haveli and  act  as  the religious preceptor of the devotees. It is customary for the devotee to  make offerings  at the  feet of the Guru when he meets the Maharaj. Such offerings are known as charanseva or offerings at  the feet  of the Guru. It is also the accepted position that the Guru moves about among the devotees living in different  areas coming  within the territorial limits of the haveli.  It is  equally customary  for devotees who meet the Guru while he is on the move outside the headquarters to make similar  offerings and these are known as Pradesh Seva. The High  Court has towards the end of its judgment adverted to these gifts and said:           "In  addition  thereto.  Gurubhet  and  Charanseva           bhets given  to the  concerned Maharaj also formed           substantial portion  of the  temple income. As the           evidence shows  more than 70% of the temple income           springs  from  the  source  of  pradesh  seva  and           guruseva bhet. We fully concur with the finding of           the Charity Commissioner in this aspect." This finding  of the  High Court has been seriously assailed by appellant’s learned counsel. Support has been sought from the observations  of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in  the  Commissioner.,  Hindu  Religious  Endowments, Madras v.  Sri Lakshmindra  Thirtha Swamiar  of  Sri  Shirur Mutt, [ 1954] SCR 1005 to contend that 716 the bhets  to the Guru are offerings to him as distinct from offerings to  the deity  and in consideration of the feature that  the   Vallabha  Sampradayin   Guru  enjoys  a  special position, these  offerings must be held to be his and not of the deity.  The High  Court has  taken the  view  that  once Bramha-Sambadha is  established,  the  Guru  as  also  every devotee in  the cult  loses his  individuality and  his very existence (apart  From the  physical) merges  with the Lord. This has  been an over stretching of the doctrine. Though we do  not  intend  to  enter  into  the  religious  rites  and practices of  the cult;  nothing has  been  shown  from  the record to  justify the  conclusion that  the Guru  is only a conduit pipe  between the devotee at one end and the Lord on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

the other  so as  to lead to the conclusion that whatever is offered at the feet of the Guru Belongs to the Lord.      In Shirur Mutt case (supra), this Court was considering the vires of the provision in section 30 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 195l, which required the personal gifts (Pada Kanikkais) to be duly accounted for and to  be spent for the Purpose of the Mutt. The gifts were taken for  granted to  be personal  and examination  was not undertaken to  ascertain whether such gifts laid at the feet of the  Guru were  personal or  otherwise. Yet inferentially support is  available for  the view that what is laid at the feet of  the J Guru is intended to be an offering to him and not to the deity. There is a distinction between an offering made before  the deity  or put into the Golak and put at the feet of  the Guru. In the earlier case, it is clearly a gift to the deity while in the latter, in the absence of anything more, it  would be  one to  the Guru.  The  High  Court,  by accepting  the  doctrine  of  Bramha  Sambadha  reached  the conclusion that  such gifts  were also  to the deity. Though the character  of pada  Kannikaris was  not in  issue before this Court  in Shirur  Mutt case,  the fact  that the  Court proceeded on  the footing that such gifts were personal is a feature which  cannot be  overlooked. The  preceptor has his position and if he is not a conduit pipe in the sense stated above, what  is laid  at his  feet out  of reverence  by the devotee must  belong to  him. We  are not  in a  position to uphold the finding of the High Court on this score and would conclude that  the proceeds of the Guruseva and Pradesh Seva do not  constitute part  of the public trust. The High Court has said  that these two sources contribute seventy per cent of the  income of  the trust. No argument was raised on this aspect by  either side. We, however, hope and trust that the Goswami  Maharaj   or  in   his  absence,  his  lawful  heir succeeding him, will continue in his discretion to allow the trust of  which he  is the  administrator to  draw upon this source as and when necessary. 717      The appeal  is partly  allowed. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs throughout.      Ajanta Estate  Agency, the  appellants in the connected appeal  entered  into  an  agreement  with  the  trustee  to purchase certain  properties  during  the  pendency  of  the litigation arising  out of  the enquiry  under the Act. Once the properties  are held  to belong to the public trust, the appellants would have no claim to enforce and the appeal has to fail.  We dismiss  the appeal  without any  direction for costs in this Court P.S.S.                                     Appeal dismissed. 718