http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, GUJARAT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M/S. B.M. KHARWAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/08/1968

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1969 AIR  812            1969 SCR  (1) 651  CITATOR INFO :  R          1971 SC  57  (7)  RF         1973 SC 318  (10)  RF         1973 SC 318  (10)  RF         1973 SC 318  (10)  RF         1973 SC 318  (10)  RF         1973 SC 318  (10)

ACT: Bombay   Public  Trusts  Act,  1950  ss.  2(9)  and   2(13)- Definitions  of "Math" and "Public Trust"-if a  branch  Math fell within the  definitions.

HEADNOTE: The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Bombay, held an  enquiry under  s. 19 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and  came to  the  conclusion that the Nasik branch of  the  principal Shringeri   Math   situated  in  the State of Mysore  was  a public trust and liable to be registered under s. 18     the Act.   The  Charity Commissioner in  appeal  confirmed  this finding and an application under s. 72 to the District Judge by  the  respondent  was  rejected  on  the  view  that  the institution at Nasik was a place of religious worship within the  meaning  of  the  definition in s.  2(9)  of  the  Act. However, the High Court allowed an appeal and set aside  the order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner. On appeal to this Court by a certificate, HELD:  The  High Court was right in holding that  the  Nasik Math  was  not liable to be registered under the  Act.   The High  Court had found in the present case that in the  Nasik Math   no  religious  instructions  were  imparted  and   no spiritual  service, was rendered to any body  of  disciples. Furthermore,  no member of the public was allowed  to  enter the place of worship without permission although worship was carried on by the Pujaris according to Vedic usage.  In view of  these findings the Nasik Math could not be held to be  a real Math or temple within the definition in s. 2(9) of  the Act. [665 B-D] HELD  also: In order to determine the situs of’  the   trust which consists of a Math and a subordinate so-called Math or Maths,  it’  is the situs of the principal Math  which  will determine the, applicability of the Act. [665 B]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Maharaikumari Umeshwari Kuer v. The State of Bihar, Petition No.  405 of 1955--decided on December 15, 1960;  and  Mahant Ramswarup  v. Motiram Khandu, (1968) Mh. L.J. 363;  referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1000 of 1965. Appeal from the judgment and decree, dated December 13, 1962 of  the  Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 688  of  1959  from original Decree. C.K.  Daphtary,  Attorney-General, M.S.K.  Sastri  and  S.P. Nayar, for the appellant. H.R.  Gokhale, Y.S. Chitale and K. Rajendra  Chaudhuri,  for the respondent. 661 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri,  J.  This appeal, by certificate granted by  the"High Court  of  Judicature at’ Bombay is  directed’  against  its judgment  and  decree, dated December 30, 1962,  whereby  it seaside   the   order  made  by   the,   Assistant   Charity Commissioner,  dated. August 19, 1955, ’as confirmed by  the Deputy  Charity  Commissioner  and by  the  District  Judge, Nasik.   The  High  Court held that the Nasik  Math  is  not ’liable  to be registered under  the  BOmbay  Public  Trusts Act, 1950.   ’ The  High  Court found the following facts relating  to  the Nasik Math:               "The principal Math is situated in the   State               of     Mysore and as His Holiness is a Sanyasi               he  generally    names the  house  properties.               with temples as  ’Maths’.   The properties  at               Nasik, Panchavati, are known as properties  of               Shringeri   Math.   The  Samadhis  have   been               constructed  to  look like’ temple,  there  is               Sabha  Mandap   in which an  ,image  of;  Adya               Shankaracharya   is   installed.     All   the               expenses  have been incurred by  His  Holiness               from the income of the Shringeri Math and some               money     was borrowed from. Nasik  creditors.               Here   religious      instructions   are   not               imparted   and   no   spiritual   service   is               rendered to any body of disciples.  Some times               people   come  there  and if  they  are  given               admission they stay   there for a short  time.               There  being "Samadhis" in    these  premises,               there are some idols and occasional  festivals               but  it is not a temple for purpose of  public               worship.   No member of the public is  allowed               to  enter  the place of worship  but  ’it  is’               carried out by the Pujaris according to  Vedic               usage..  This property is being maintained  by               the Principal-Math from the  very   beginning.               The      income consists. of. (1 ) rent earned               by  letting the property; (2)  offerings  made               before ’the Samadhis; (3)     grant from Nasik               Treasury  of  Rs.’  289 ’per year  and.(  4  )               yearly  grant  of  Rs.  460-1,0  from  village               Pimpalgaon Funji in Ahmednagar District." The High Court further observed:               "One  of  the Sanads regarding the  income  of               Pimpalgaon village is on record’ and it  shows               that  the grant of the income ’of the  village               is   made  to  Shri   Shankaracharya   clearly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             mentioning it to be for the  expenses  of  the               ’Sansthan’  but  the tenor  of  the  documents               shows  that  the  offering  iS  made  to   the               Shankaracharya himself." 662 The relevant provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ,(Bombay Act XXXIX of 1950)  hereinafter referred to as  the Act--are as follows:  The preamble of’ the Act reads:               "An  Act  to  regulate  and  to  make   better               provision  for  the administration  of  public               religious  and charitable trusts in the  State               of Bombay." It would be noticed that the intention is only to deal  with the  trusts which are in the State of Bombay;it is  not  the idea   to  regulate  or  make  better  provision   for   the administration  of trusts outside the State of  Bombay;  and one  of  the questions which we have to  answer  is  whether Nasik  Math can be said to be in the State of  Bombay.   The word  "math" is defined in s. 2( 9 ) of the Act to mean  "an institution  for  the promotion of Hindu  religion  presided over  by  a  person whose duty it is to  engage  himself  in imparting  religions  instructions  or  rendering  spiritual services  to a body of disciples or who exercises or  claims to  exercise head ship over such a body and includes  places of religious worship or instruction which are appurtenant to the.  institution."  "Public trust" is defined in s.  2(  13 )to  mean  "an express or constructive. trust for  either  a public religions or charitable purpose or both and  includes a temple, a math, a wakf, a dharmada or any other  religious or  charitable endowment and a society formed either  for  a religious  or charitable purpose or for both and  registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860." The  definition of  "temple" may also be noted.  "Temple" means   "a   place by   whatever  ,designation  known and used as  a  place  of public religious worship and dedicated to or for the benefit of or used as of right by the Hindu community or any section thereof,  as  a  place  of  public  religious  worship.  Is. 2(17)]." Section  18 of the Act provides for registration  of  public trusts  and  makes it the duty of the Trustees of  a  public trust  to which the Act applies to make an  application  for the  registration  of  the public trust. It  is  under  this section that an ’application was made, under protest, by one Y.M.  Krishnamurthy, Revenue Officer and  Incharge  Officer, Shri Shringeri Mutt and its properties. The Assistant Charity Commissioner held an enquiry under  s. 19  of  the  Act and came to the  conclusion  that  a  trust existed  and  it  is  a public trust and  is  liable  to  be registered under the Act. An appeal was taken to the Charity Commissioner.  The Deputy Charity Commissioner, exercising appellate powers, confirmed the   findings   and   order  of   the   Assistant   Charity Commissioner.   An application was then made under s. 72  of the Act to the District Judge to set aside the decision  and order  of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, but the  District Judge confirmed 663 the  order  and dismissed the petition. He held  that  "this institution must be considered as a Branch Mutt even  though its   origin   may  be  the  Samadhis  or   tombs   of   the Shankaracharya  of the name Abhinava Sachhidanand  Bharati." He further came to the conclusion that "the evidence on  the record  shows that this Institution at Nasik is a  place  of religious  worship within the meaning of the  definition  in section 2(9) of the Act." He observed;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             "There  is no dispute that there are idols  of               Shri Adya Shankaracharya and Shri Dattaraya in               this institution and worship of those idols is               carried on there. The festivals which are held               and  which are attended by the public who  are               invited on  such  occasions  are  the Jayantis               of  Shri Shankaracharya and the deity of  Shri               Dattatraya.   In  this  behalf,  the   printed               invitations (Exhibits 12/29, 12/30 and  12/31)               may  be   perused.  There is  also  day-to-day               worship  of these deities which is carried  on               by the pujaris."               He further observed:               "Considering  from this point of  view,   this               place  would be a place of  religious  worship               and there is no dispute that at any rate it is               appurtenant  to  the main institution  or  the               Muth at Shringeri." He  further  held that "this institution  or  Foundation  at Nasik is admittedly a Branch of the Muth at Shringeri  which is  founded  by Adya Shankaracharya, and this  Branch  would partake of the nature of the main or principal   Institution at   Shringeri."  He accordingly held that it would be  idle to  contend  that this institution at Nasik would  not  come within even what is  called  the ’inclusive portion’ of  the definition of ’Muth’ enacted in Section 2(9) of the Act. The  learned  counsel for the appellant  contends  that  the Nasik Math is an independent Math within S. 2(9) of the  Act and, therefore, covered by the provisions of the Act; at any rate,  even if the Nasik Math is an adjunct of or  dependent upon  the principal math at Shringeri, it is covered by  the Act. In  Maharajkumari Umeshwari Kuer v. The State  of  Bihar(1), while   considering  the  provisions  of  the  Bihar   Hindu Religious   Trusts  Act,  1950  (Bihar  Act  1   of   1951), Gajendragadkar, J., as he then was, speaking for the  Court, observed:               "On  behalf  of  the  petitioner  the  learned               Attorney  General  has  contended  that  as  a               result of our decisions in the group of  cases               to  which we have already referred it  is  now               established that before the Act can apply two (1) petition No. 405 of 1955--decided on December 15, 1960. 664               conditions must be satisfied; first, that  the               religious trust or the institution itself must               be in Bihar, and second, part of its  property               must be situated in the State  of Bihar. Since               the  first  of  these two  conditions  is  not               satisfied  in the present case the Act  cannot               apply.  In our opinion this contention is well               rounded and must be upheld." The facts in that case were that "a temple (was) situated at Vrmdavan  Dham in the District of Mathra in  Uttar  Pradesh. In this temple were installed the family idol of Shri  Radha Gopalji  as well as the idol of Radhendra Kishorji  in  1872 and  1877 respectively by Maharani Inderjit Kuer  of Tikari. The   said  Maharani created a waqf  of  certain  properties known  as  Balkbar  Mahal  in the  District  of  Gaya  by  a registered  deed  of  endowment on July 25,  1872,  for  the purpose of meeting the expenses relating to food,  offering, prayers  and worship in the said temple.... The  Trust  owns properties also in Bihar."                 ’ This  Court repelled the contention that since the  Trustees reside in Bihar and the Trust is substantially  administered

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

in  Bihar  the  provisions  of  the  Bihar  Act   would   be applicable,  and observed:               "It is the situs of the trust of the principal               institution or temple with which the trust  is               integrally   connected  that  determines   the               applicability  of the Act. The  properties  in               question  which are situated partly  in  Uttar               Pradesh  and  partly in Bihar  belong  to  the               temple  and  the deity is their  owner.   This               deity  is enshrined in the temple situated  at               Vrindavan  Dham,  and so it is  common  ground               that the situs of the temple is outside Bihar.               It   is  also  admitted  that  part   of   the               properties belonging to the trust are in Uttar               Pradesh.  Therefore the two tests laid down by               this  Court inevitably lead to the  conclusion               that the present trust is outside the  purview               of the Act.  The fact that the trustees reside               in  Bihar  or  that  the  trust  is  partially               administered   in    Bihar    for   charitable               purposes  can  make  no  difference  to   this               position." In Mahant Ramswarup v. Motiram  Khandu(1),  a  case governed by the Bombay Public Trusts Act, Shelat, J., observed:               "There.  is  no  dispute  that  the  trust  is               administered at Burhanpur and the bulk of  its               properties, except the three’ pieces of  lands               situate  in  the District of Dhulia,  are  all               situate  in  the, Madhya Pradesh  State.   The               fact that a part of its properties is  situate               in Maharashtra (1) [1968] Mh. L.J. 363. 665               State,  though  the  trust  is  within  Madhya               Pradesh  State, would not mean that the  trust               would be governed partly by the Madhya Pradesh               Act  and  partly by the Bombay  Act.   Such  a               division  of the Trust and its  administration               is  not  contemplated  by either  of  the  two               Acts." It  seems to us that, in view of the above  authorities,  in order o determine the situs of the trust, which consists  of a Math and   subordinate so-called math or maths, it is  the situs  of  the  principal  math  which  will  determine  the applicability  of  the  Act. We need  not  here  decide  the position  of an independent real math bough  connected  with another  math. The’ High  Court  has ound in this case  that in the Nasik Math no religious instructions are imparted and no  spiritual service is rendered to any body of  disciples. Further no member of the public is allowed 0 enter the place of worship without permission although worship s carried out by  the Pujaris according to vedic usage.  In  view    these findings the Nasik Math cannot be held to be a real math  or temple  within  the  definitions  set  out  above.   In  our opinion, the High Court was right in holding that the  Nasik Math is not liable to be registered under the Act. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs. R.K.P.S.                                   Appeal dismissed. 666