Idol of Shri Narsingji Maharaj and Others vs Prabhati Vaish

Guman Mal Lodha, J.—This is a defendant''s appeal against the judgment of the Addl. Civil Judge, Bharatpur, whereby the first appellate court decreed the plaintiff''s suit as a whole Which was decreed partly by the trial court with regard to the shop situated on the eastern side holding that the Idol had not been installed on the eastern shop but dismissed the suit with regard to the shop situated on western side holding that the Idol had been installed on the western shop.

The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit against the appellants contending that the plaintiff gifted the disputed two shops on January 17, 1967 with the condition that the shops will be constructed upto Smt. Yr. 2024 and Idol installed therein else the gift shall be deemed cancelled. As it was not done, hence the gift deed stands cancelled and it be sold again.

The defendant contested the suit and contended that the Idol has been installed as per conditions and the suit should be dismissed.

After framing of the issues and hearing the parties, the trial court partly decreed the plaintff''s suit as mentioned above.

Both the parties filed appeals before the first appellate court. The suit has been decreed by the first appellate court.

Curiously enough, the first appellate court decreed the suit on a short point that no gift is permissible in favour of Idol although on facts there was finding that the agreement (Ex.1) had not been complied with.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that in view of the Full Bench decision of Madras High Court in Tangella Narasimhaswami, Dharmakartha of Sri Kodanda Ramachandra Moorthy Vs. Iamidi Venkatalingam and Others, the principle is well settled that the dedication or the property to God by a Hindu does not require any document & that property can be validly dedicated without any registered instrument. This principle has been followed in AIR 1946 Oudh 256. It has been observed as under:

The transfer of property to an Idol is not covered by Section 5. Such a transfer of property is not subject the provision of TP Act. He relied upon AIR 1927 Mad. 636.

A reading of the deed (Ex. 1) shows that the signatories Baldev Prasad and others took a gift for the purposes of installing an Idol of Narsinghji Maharaj which was at that time being kept in worship on the terrace of these shops and building.

Since there is a finding of the trial court that that Idol was installed on the ground floor in one of the shops, the conditions of deed (Ex. 1) were substantially fulfilled. I am of the opinion that the first appellate court has committed a substantial error of law, in accepting the appeal of the plaintiff and rejecting the appeal of the defendant.

Reliance placed upon the principles laid down in Ram Kumar Ram Chandra and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, is misconceived. In my opinion, though the gift is for the purpose of installing the Idol of Narsinghji Maharaj, in fact as the document shows that it is favour of the trustees and worshippers including the signatories of the deed (Ex. 1) who undertook to maintain temple and make renovations of the shops for the purpose of making it temple.

All the worshippers and the denomination having religion and the faith of the Idol of Narisinghji Maharaj and particularly Brahmin society of Sikri would be represented in the trust to have interest in up keeping & management of these shops as temple. While doing so the plaintiff who is donor, will have also sufficient interest as donor trustees for safeguarding the property and ensuring that it is used for the objects for which the dedication has been made and he would be made trustee.

In the above terms, this appeal is allowed and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed setting aside the judgment & decrees passed by both the courts below. The parties would bear their own costs through-out.