Gaya's Vishnupad Temple Is A Public Trust, Not Private Property Of Gayawal Brahmins: Patna High Court

“Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances particularly the origin of temple, the right exercised by the devotee with regard to worship, nature and extent of gift/contribution made by the public and the dictum laid down in the aforesaid decisions, there is hardly any room for doubt that Vishnupad temple is a religious public trust and not a private property of the Gayawals Brahmins,” observed a bench of Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra while dismissing the second appeal filed on behalf of a group of Gayawal Pandas.

The bench added that it is settled law that if the public at large exercises their right of worship as a matter of right in a temple or over a deity and they are the beneficiaries, it would be a public trust, and since the beneficiaries of Vishnupad temple are general public, it is a religious public trust.

The verdict is significant in the sense that it brings an end to the legal dispute over control of the Vishnupad Temple between local priests and the Bihar State Board of Religious Trust (BSBRT).

The case in brief

Essentially, in the year 1977, a civil suit was filed in the local Gaya court by the Gayawal Pandas as well Vishnupad Bhagwan (through next friend) seeking a declaration that the temple is a private trust and the Gayawal priests have full control over its management and it is not a public temple to be governed by the provisions of Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950.

It was also prayed that the defendants (including the BSBRT) be restrained permanently from interfering with the right and possession of the plaintiffs in any manner whatsoever even by the formation of any committee

The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff priests in 1993, against which, the BSBRT went in appeal (first) in the court of the district judge, Gaya and the said title appeal was allowed and thereby, the ex-parte order and decree of June 1993 were set aside (in December 2020) by holding that temple is a public trust and amenable to the general superintending powers of the BSBRT.

Now, the instant Second Appeal before the HC was filed by the plaintiff-priests challenging the judgment of December 2020.

Before the HC, it was primarily contended that according to the Sashtra, as to be found in sacred Agni Puran and Vayu Puran, this Gaya Tirth was handed over to them (Gayawal Brahmins) by Sri Lord Brahma and they are enjoined that they will get their livelihood from this Tirth.

It was further argued that the sacred footmark of Lord Vishnu was subsequently encircled by a temple, which was constructed with stones at the instance of Rani Ahilya Bai in place of the old temple which had been built by the Gayawal Brahmins.

On the other hand, it was the case of the BSBRT that the construction of the temple by Rani Ahilya Bai was not for Gayawal Brahmins but in her own right as one of the devotees and for general Hindu, which conclusively proves that the Vishnupad temple is a public property and not exclusive property of Gayawal Brahmins.

It was strongly contended that the Vishnupad temple and allied vedis are part and parcel of each other and every Hindu has his/her birthright to visit the temple and the same is not at the grace of the Gayawal.

Court's observations

Against the backdrop of the submissions made by both sides, the Court observed that in the instant case, it was not in dispute that Hindus have belief in Purans including Vayu Puran, Agni Puran, Gaya Mahatmya, Vedas and the religious rituals including performing shraadh at Gaya Kshetra.

The Court further noted that as it is undisputed that as per Vayu Puran and Agni Puran, lord Vishnu granted a boon to Gayasur who dedicated his body for Yagna that whosoever visited Gaya Kshetra and perform shraadh there, his ancestors would attain moksha and gayawal Brahmans were blessed with right to purohit by Lord Brahma.

The Court also noted that Rani Ahilya Bai had constructed the Vishnupad temple without retaining any interest in the temple after its construction and the public in general can take part in worship and other form of ceremonies of Lord Vishnupad.

The Court also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs Mahant Suresh Das and Others (Ayodhya Verdict) 'on faith and belief', wherein the Top Court had held that once the court has intrinsic material to accept that the faith or the belief is genuine and not a pretence, it must defer to the belief of the worshipper.

The Court also noted that the first appellate Court in deciding the nature of trust placed reliance on several books, and ancient texts and also considered the material on record and held that the plaintiffs (gayaval brahmins) had miserably failed to prove their exclusive right, title and possession over the Vishnupad temple through cogent and reliable sources.

In view of this, finding justification in the findings of the first appellate court, the High Court dismissed the second appeal while affirming that Sri Vishnupad temple is a public trust and not a private temple of Gayawal Brahmins.