"Considerable Inflow Of Public Income To Deity": Bombay High Court Dismisses Pleas Claiming Jagdamba Tuljapurchi Temple Is 'Private Temple'

Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh of Aurangabad bench dismissed three writ petitions by the heirs of the original trustee of the Temple claiming it is a private temple and seeking de-registration of the temple trust.

“the origin of temple cannot be said to be traceable to the year 1913; the Palkhi and the deity was a matter of public worship and there was considerable flow of public income to the Palkhi and the deity…the description of temple, which is situated in the front two rooms of Wada, the kalas and the free access and exit for Darshan without any hindrance or obstruction from any member of the Bhagat family is cogent evidence of the temple being place of public religious worship as a matter of right.”

The court held that the public trust for the temple was created validly in 1954, and the property is owned by the trust.

In 1954, the trust for the temple was registered on an application of one Kisan Lahanu Bhagat. From 1980, a series of litigation was started by Kisan Bhagat’s son Arjun and grandson Vijay, regarding the ownership of temple land and the creation and registration of the public trust leading to the present revision applications in the High Court. The Bhagats approached the High Court seeking de-registration of the trust. A separate appeal against civil court’s decree declaring the trust property as Bhagats’ private property is pending before the HC.

The Bhagats contended that Shri Jagdamba Tuljapur Bhawani is their family deity. In 1913, their ancestor Lahanu Bhagat purchased the idols and installed them for the purpose of Pooja-Archana and religious rites by the family members, not the public. They contended that the tradition of taking Palkhi (palanquin) of the deity from Burhanpur to Tuljapur has nothing to do with the subject goddess.

However, a book published by Arjun Bhagat details the history of the temple and says that Lahanu Bhagat’s great grandfather Jankoji started the tradition of taking Palkhi of the idol. Therefore, the Bhagats had the burden to explain the history of idols in existence from the time of Jankoji if they claim that the current idols exist only since 1913, the court said.

“The book published by Arjun Kisan Bhagat narrates the history of Jankoji taking the palkhi of the Goddess from Burhannagar to Tuljapur. It is an age-old Hindu tradition that in specific auspicious month, the idol or some form representing the idol is taken in a palkhi or palanquin to the idol’s revered destination. The claim of the Petitioners is that the temple was built in the year 1913 and the idols were also purchased at the same time, which cannot be accepted by reason of the admission of the tradition of palkhi having originated since the time of Jankoji. As palkhi was being taken from Burhannagar to Tuljapur, the idol of the Goddess was in existence since the time of Jankoji”, the court held.

The court noted that there was a substantial flow of public money to Palkhi and there is no mention of any other source of income for the Bhagats’ ancestors apart from the offerings made to the temple and the Palkhi. This strongly indicates that the temple was constructed out of public funds, the court said. The court further noted that the expenses of maintaining the temple are met out of the public funds.

The creation of public trust was challenged on the ground that there is no trust deed, no constitution, and no rules and regulations. The court noted that the Maharashtra Trust Act, 1950 does not mandate execution of trust deed for creation of a public trust.

Kisan Bhagat’s application for registration of the trust stated that the purpose of the trust is to maintain the temple in perpetuity and to carry out worship of the deity. The court said that the application and the annexures reveal his intention to dedicate the property to the public trust as he did not reserve any beneficial interest for himself or his heirs.

The Bhagats said that there is no endowment of the property to the trust as there is no deed transferring the property to the trust. The court noted that the Bhagats did not bring any evidence to show that their predecessors were the owners of the property. Since the evidence regarding ownership of property by the Bhagats in the first place is absent, the court rejected their contention regarding the absence of transfer deed.

Since its inception, the public used to take darshan of Palkhi and it was receiving government grant. This indicates that it is meant for public and not controlled exclusively by the Bhagats, said the court. Therefore, the court held that the creation of public trust and dedication of temple to the public is established through cogent and reliable evidence.

The Bhagats contended that the registration of the public trust was invalid as no enquiry was made and no order was passed on the registration of trust. From the record, the court noted that there was enquiry and endorsement for the trust.

The court opined that the proceedings were of 1954 and hence it cannot be said with certainty that there was no separate order of registration. It has to be presumed that the required procedure was duly followed, and it is not open for the Bhagats to contend that there was no enquiry and separate order after a lapse of almost 54 years, the court held.

Hence, the court held that all essential procedure was followed in the registration of the trust. Further, there is a rebuttable presumption of validity of official acts under section 141(e) of the Indian Evidence Act which is not disproved by the Bhagats, the court said.

The court held that the District Judge rightly considered the magnitude and the area of the temple, Kalash in front of the temple, and free access to public. The court upheld District Judge’s finding that Hindus were treating it as a place of public religious worship as a matter of right.

Merely because it is situated on the Bhagat's residential premises is not sufficient to say that it is a private temple, the court held.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 305 of 2023

Case Title – Vijay Arjun Bhagat v. Kisan Lahanu Bhagat (deceased) and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 216