Supreme Court directs fresh inquiry on temple’s public status: Vijendra Kumar vs. Commissioner, A.P. Charitable Institutions (2017)

Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2017

Citation: 2017 INSC 1084

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Amitava Roy, J.

Can a family claim a temple as their private property, even if it’s frequented by the public? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex question in a case involving a dispute over the status of a temple in Andhra Pradesh. The core issue was whether the temple was a private place of worship or a public shrine, impacting its management and control. The bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana and Amitava Roy, with the judgment authored by Justice Amitava Roy.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around a temple that the appellants claim as their private property. The appellants’ grandfather acquired the land in 1893 and installed a family idol of Shri Hanuman Ji. The temple was registered in the Books of Endowment in 1936, with the appellants’ father, Gokarnath Tiwari, listed as the endower. The appellants contend that the temple was always a family place of worship, while the respondents, the Commissioner of the A.P. Charitable and Religious Institutions, claim it’s a public temple.

In 1965, the Endowment Department asked the appellants to submit the temple’s accounts, which they contested. After their father’s death in 1969, they continued to manage the temple as a family affair. In 1975, they filed an application under Section 77 of the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowment Act of 1966, asserting the temple’s private status. This application was dismissed, leading to a suit in 1977 seeking a declaration that the temple was private and that the entry in the Register of Endowments was null and void.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court initially ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that although the Register of Endowments indicated the father had endowed the property for Wakf, the lack of supervision by the Ecclesiastical Department for four decades made the entry doubtful. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, stating that the temple was public due to the fact that it is visited by the public and also because of the entry in the Register of Endowments. The High Court also relied on Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows a presumption of validity for official acts. The Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the decision of the Single Judge, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowment Act of 1966. The key legal provision is the process of registering an endowment, which is governed by the Endowment Regulations sanctioned by the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1349 Fasli (1940 AD). These regulations outline the procedure for compiling the Book of Endowments, requiring trustees or endowers to inform the Director of Endowments about any endowments. The regulations also mandate a notification process, allowing objections and inquiries before registration. The Court also considered Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which allows for a presumption of validity of official acts.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the temple was their private property, passed down from their grandfather. They claimed that the structure was initially a temporary tin shed, later converted into a permanent structure with their own funds.
• They contended that the temple was never dedicated to the public, and any public visits were due to its location near a public thoroughfare, not because it was a public temple.
• They disputed the entry in the Register of Endowments (Exh.B6), claiming their father never made such an endowment and that they never received any notice about it. They suggested that the entry might be the result of mischief by their neighbors.
• They emphasized that they paid taxes and electricity charges for the property and did not collect donations from the public.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the temple was a public temple, with a large number of devotees visiting daily and making offerings.
• They asserted that the temple had been endowed by the appellants’ father for public charitable purposes, as evidenced by the entry in the Register of Endowments and its publication in the Hyderabad Gazette.
• They contended that the appellants were obligated to submit the temple’s budget to the Endowment Department due to its public status.
• They pointed to the fact that the temple was being maintained by public offerings.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellants lies in their challenge to the validity of the entry in the Register of Endowments, despite its official nature and publication in the gazette. They argued that the entry was made without their father’s knowledge or consent and without due process, thus questioning the presumption of validity of official acts.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the temple and its premises are the exclusive private property of the appellants and their family, or whether it had been endowed for wakf or charitable/public purposes.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: The Court acknowledged the presumption of validity of official acts but emphasized that this presumption is rebuttable and can be dislodged by convincing evidence to the contrary.
• Endowment Regulations sanctioned by the Nizam of Hyderabad in 1349 Fasli (1940 AD): The Court relied on these regulations to understand the procedure for registering endowments and emphasized the need to verify if the prescribed procedure was followed in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair and thorough investigation into the temple’s status. The Court was not convinced by the evidence presented by either side and found that the matter required a more detailed inquiry. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The conflicting oral evidence presented by both sides was inconclusive and did not definitively establish the temple’s status.
• The entry in the Register of Endowments (Exh.B6) was significant but needed to be verified against the prescribed procedure for registering endowments.
• The presumption of validity of official acts under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, was rebuttable and could be challenged with sufficient evidence.
• The appellants’ claim that they never received notice of the endowment needed to be investigated.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the conflicting evidence and the need to verify the procedure followed in registering the endowment, than by purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of conclusive evidence. The final decision was to direct a fresh inquiry to ascertain the truth.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, stated:

“…it would be in fitness of things that an opportunity be granted to the parties to adduce all evidence, oral and documentary, at their disposal available to them to finally and conclusively determine as to whether the temple and its premises had been endowed by the father of the appellants…”

“…the presumption of validity of official acts, is essentially rebuttable and can be dislodged by convincing evidence to the contrary.”

“We make it clear that we have not offered any final comments on the merits of the case and the authority would adjudicate the issue without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has directed a fresh inquiry to determine whether the temple is a private or public property.
• The Court emphasized that the presumption of validity of official acts is rebuttable and can be challenged with sufficient evidence.
• The case highlights the importance of following the prescribed procedure for registering endowments.
• The decision underscores the need for a thorough investigation in cases involving disputes over religious properties.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellants to file a representation before the concerned authority under the Andhra Pradesh Hindu Charitable and Religious Institutions and Endowment Act of 1966, within four weeks. The authority was directed to issue notice to the Department, allow both sides to adduce evidence, and decide the issue within six months. The Court also ordered that the status quo of the property be maintained until the adjudication is complete.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the presumption of validity of official acts under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is rebuttable and can be challenged with sufficient evidence. This case also emphasizes the importance of following the prescribed procedure for registering endowments and the need for a thorough investigation in cases involving disputes over religious properties. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the need for a thorough investigation in cases involving disputes over religious properties.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vijendra Kumar vs. Commissioner, A.P. Charitable Institutions (2017) sets aside the High Court’s judgment and orders a fresh inquiry to determine the true status of the temple. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation and the rebuttable nature of the presumption of validity of official acts. This case highlights the complexities involved in determining whether a religious place is private or public and the need for a fair and transparent process.