Use Of Temple By Members Of Public As Of Right Determines Whether It Is A Public Trust When Origin Of Endowment Cannot Be Ascertained: Karnataka High Court
While restoring Assistant Charity Commissioner's order, the Bench said hereditary Archaks performing pooja cannot be excluded from trusteeship merely because they are beneficiaries under Bombay Public Trusts Act.
The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench has held that where no endowment document exists to trace a temple's origin, the determinative test for classifying it as a "temple" under Section 2(17) of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is whether it has been used by members of the public as a place of worship as of right.
The Court further held that hereditary Archaks who perform pooja and receive offerings cannot be excluded from trusteeship merely because they are also beneficiaries, holding that Section 2(18) of the Act "does not say that the beneficiary is to be excluded from becoming trustee", and that including such archaks "would help the overall development of the temple because they are the pillars of the temple”.
Justice Geetha K.B. observed, “Admittedly, there is no endowment produced by either party to say that the temple is endowed. However, it is an admitted fact that it is an ancient temple; under these circumstances, use of the temple by members of the public Hindus is as of right or not is to be decided to determine said place as temple or not”.
Advocate Ramachandra A. Mali appeared for the appellant and Advocate Shivakumar S. Badawadagi appeared for the respondent.
An inquiry petition was filed under Section 18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act seeking registration of Sri Yallamma Devi Temple, Jalalpur, as a public trust, naming 33 devotee-trustees along with four hereditary poojaris. Rival groups of archaks, each claiming exclusive pooja rights through separate ancestral lines, sought inclusion as trustees, against a backdrop of long-running civil litigation between them over performance of pooja.
The Assistant Charity Commissioner held the temple to be a public trust but excluded the four archaks as mere beneficiaries. The Charity Commissioner reversed this entirely, relying on an incidental observation in an earlier second appeal between two archak claimants concerning pooja rights alone, and this was upheld by the District Judge and, initially, by the High Court.
The Supreme Court set aside that order and remanded the matter, holding that the RSA finding was incidental and had no bearing on the present proceedings.
The Court held the earlier RSA finding could not bind the present case, noting that "except opponent Nos.5 & 6 of present petition, other parties to present proceedings are not parties in that appeal," rendering that finding "only incidental and not on core issues."
Placing reliance on Bala Shankar Mama Shankar Bhattjjee & others v. Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, AIR 1995 SC 167 and Radhakanta Deb and another v. The Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa, AIR 1981 SC 798 the Court found the temple's antiquity, unimpeded public worship, and consistent performance of pooja by hereditary archaks collectively established its public character.
“In nutshell, it is established that Sri Yallamma Devi Temple is an ancient temple; place of public religious worship; dedicated to Hindu community for their benefit and Hindu community people are having right to use it as of right for their offerings to the deity and worship the deity. Thus, the ingredients of Section 2(17) of the BPT Act are fulfilled. Thus, Sri Yallamma Devi Temple comes under the definition of ‘Temple’ as per Section 2(17) of BPT Act.”, the Bench held.
“The devotees themselves cannot directly offer prayers before the idols which are consecrated and placed in the sanctum. So, they approach the temple for worship. Only when the poojaris /Archaks performs the pooja with true inner devotion can the devotees successfully offer those prayers to the deity of ignite the same spiritual energy in the devotees. Thus making the poojaris/Archaks a trustee of the temple”, the Bench further said.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the orders of the District Judge and Charity Commissioner were set aside, and the Assistant Charity Commissioner's finding that the temple is a public trust was restored. The Court modified the trustee composition to include one representative each from the two rival archak families, alongside the 33 originally named trustees, and directed registration of the temple as a public trust.
Cause Title: Mallari S/o Ramchandra Nimbalkar v. Laxman Raju Poojari and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:8167)
Appearances:
Appellant: Ramachandra A. Mali, Advocate.
Respondent: Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, Ravikumar D. Gokakakar, Abhishek Malipatil, Advocates.