Mahant Govind Sharandas vs Ragistrar, Public Trust, Raipur

R. S. Garg, J.

L. P. A. Nos. 68/86 and 69/86 have been filed by the dis-satisfied parties against the judgment and decree dated 30/7/86 passed in First Appeal No. 113/81 whereunder learned Single Judge of this Court while approving the scheme and appointment of 9 trustees, has set aside certain findings and directed appointment of Mahant Govind Sharandas as one of the trustees, modfying the order dated 3.7.81 passed in M. J. C. No. 11/74 (old No. 35/70) by the learned Addl. Distt, Judge, Raipur.

The case concerns an ancient temple situate at Raipur which is known as Shri Ramchandra Swami Temple, Purani Basti, Raipur or as Nagridas temple. The temple is endowed with considerable properties. The "Mahant" or rleigious head of the institution in 1837 was one Artidas who was succeeded by his Chela Gulabdas. After the death of Gulabdas in 1874 he was succeeded by Nagridas allegedly under Guru-Shishya Proampara. Artidas, Gulabdas and Nagridas were the trustees and manager of the property of the deity instituted in the temple and also claimed to be Mahant of the temple. In 1886 Civil Suit No. 3/86 was filed by one Jaiwantibai, widow of the descendent of the founder of the institution, seeking removal of Nagridas and rendition of accounts. On 3.4.1889 an application for compromise was filed on strength of which a judgment was passed on 3.4.1889 itself in Civil Original Suit No. 3/1886. The said judgment and decree are on record. In the said suit it was alleged by Jaiwantibai that Nagridas had mis-oppropriated the temple funds and property and he was of immoral character. The compromise agreement and decree provided for the removal of Nagridas from the trusteeship and not from the officer of the'' ''Mahant'''' and for substitution of a committee of 3 named persons with provision for the appointment of others in vacancies occuring in the committee of the three. Thereafter a committee was appointed and the property remained in possession of some persons who were looking after the funds. income and property of the temple.

This first vacancy in the said board of 3 trustees occurred in 1895 on the death of Shivrajsingh Subedarsingh, a member of the family of the founder. Gangaram was appointed to fill the vacancy by the 2 trustees in accordance with the said decree. Oilier appointments were made by advice of the other 2 members of the original committee. Nagridas died in 1910 and his chela Radhikedas was appointed as "Mahant" in his place by members of the committee. Gangaram Subedar, a duly appointed member of the Committee refused to join in his recognition of Radhikadas as "Mahant". Radhikadas succeeded to the office of "Mahant" though without a proper recognition according to the ordinary rule of devolution of that office in accordance with Guru-Shishya Parmpara. Radhikadas who succeeded to the Gadi (Seat) was a Minor and after attaining majority in 1920 he started asserting his rights and wanted to resume possession and management of the Estate and succeeded to a certain extent. This dispute led to institution of a civil suit which was filed by Gangaram and another. The trial Court by its judgment dated 15.12.1924 decreed the said suit and the matter came up before the Judicial Commissioner, Nagpur in F. A. No. 30/1925. The matter was heard and the division bench of the Judicial Commissioner by its judgment dated 15.3.1926 held that the decree of 1889 went beyond the powers of the Court that made it. According to the judgment, the original claim in 1886 suit was for rendition of accounts and removal of Nagridas from the trusteeship. The Court further held that the consent of Nagridas could not empower the Court to formulate a scheme for the management of the trust after his death or to break the custom whereby Mahant for the time being, was ex officio the trustee and the manager. The Court was of the opinion that it could be done only in a suit instituted with the permission of the Advocate General as provided in Section 539 (now section 92) C. P. C. then in force. The judidial Commissioner in para 12 of his judgment suggested that it would be advisable to do regularly what ought to have been done in 1886 i. e. to file a suit for formulation of scheme for management after obtaining permission of Advocate General u/s 92 C. P. C. The Judicial Commissioner was also of the opinion that the trusteeship should not be vested in any one person but in a body of persons which might perhaps include the persons in whom trust is vested. The Judicial Commissioner in view of his findings dismissed the suit instituted by Gangaram and another with said findings.

Mahant Radhikdas instituted a Civil Suit No. 31/1926 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Class II, Raipur for rendition of account against Gangaram alleging therein that he was Mahant of the temple of Shri Ramchandra Swami and Laxman Swami of Raipur. His Guru Nagridas was Mahant of the temple and he was the trustee and manager of the temple property. Radhikadas claiming to have the office of the Mahant and trustee after the death of Nagridas in 1910, on attaining majority in 1920 served a notice on Gangarma caliming possession of the temple property and actually took possession of the property. Radhikadas in the said suit alleged that defendant Gangaram alone managed the properly and collected the income thereof from 1895 to 1920. Therefore, he was liable to render the accounts for all those years. This Civil Suil No. 31/1926 was ultimately decreed by the Sub Judge Class II Raipur vide its judgment dated 29.2.1928 and a preliminary decree in favour of Radhikadas was passed directing that account of the income and expenditure of the suit property be taken from Gangaram for the period form 1895 to 1920.

Some where in August 1953 Mahant Radhikadas moved an application u/s 4 of the M. P. Public Trust Act, 1951 (30/51) for registration of the said temple and its properties as public trust. In the application which was in form III (vide Rule 4 (2) Radhikadas submitted that Nagridas temple was a public trust for religious purpose and it was founded by one Gajrajsingh Agarwal who also installed the idols of Thakur Ramchandraji Swami in the said temple. Radhikadas submitted that the temple and the property be registered as a public trust through regarding succession to the trusteeship and managership he submitted that the same is regulated by the custom prevalent in the Nihanga Sampradaya of Vashnev Sact. The succession to Gadi of trusteeship is from Guru to Chela. He further submitted that in absence of a Chela or in case of more than one Chalas, the selection would be made by the members of the sect. On 6.6.1956 Radhikadas was examined. It appears to that stage the matter was sent to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Raipur for making inquiry into the application filed by "Mahant" Radhikadas for registration of the Public trust. Chhatradharilal belonging to the family of the founder raised objections alleging that Kadbikadas has forcibly taken possesion of the trust property as also transfered some of the properties in the name of his brother disciple (Guru Bhai_) Purshottamdas, and in view of the earlier decisions he should be appointed one of the trustees. The application filed by Chhatrdharilal was opposed by Radhikadas on the ground that being hard pressed in money matters Chattradharilal wanted an entry in the board of trustees. The Sub-Divisional Officer in his report gave the findings and proposals that the temple was a public trust, property shown in schedules A and B were the property of the trust. The properties movable and immovable were situate in the Raipur district within the jurisdiction of Registrar of Public Trust, Raipur. A trust committee be formed either by the Dy. Commissioner as provided in the judgment of Civil Court or by referring the matter to the Civil Court u/s 2612) of the Public Trust Act. One of the trustees should always be from the family of Gajrajsingh, Kodansingh or Madhasing and the other 2 from general public of Raipur. Any vacancy may be filed by selection by remaining trustees or by election at a meeting called by the trustees or by the Dy. Commissioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer found that Radlukadas failed to manage the trust property and deserved to be removed from the management. He further advised that the new trust committee should appoint a Pujari who may be given the name of Sarvarakar if the trust committee so desires. Various other suggestions were also made. After considering the objections and the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, by order dated 30.8.1956 in Revenue Case No. 22-xxxii-7/1952-53 (in Mahant Radhikadas v. Chhatradharilal), the Dy. Com-missioner and the Registrar Public, Trust, Raipur ordered that Shri Ramchandra Swami temple Aminpara, Raipur be registered as a public trust and the records of the findings be published on the notice board as required u/s 7 of the Act. Relevant entries were made in the register of property of the public trust at S. No. 91 showing Nagridas temple, Aminpara, Raipur as the Public trust. Under column 3 of the said entry where names of the trustees and managers with their addresses are to be given, it was stated that, for the present Mahant Radhikadas Sarvarakar, Nagridas temple but a trust committee has to be formed on reference to the Civil Court u/s 26 (2) of the M. P. Public Trust Act. On 17.1.1960 "Mahant" Radhikadas proceeded to his heavenly abode and a condolence meeting was held on 29.1.1960. On 29.1.1960 itself a resolution was passed by the persons collected the Govindsharasdas should succeed to the Gadi and "Mahantship" after the death of Radhikadas. On 3.2.1960 "Mahant" Govindsharandas moved an application u/s 9 of the Act that a change has become necessary in the interest of the administration of the public trust and it was necessary to record a finding to that effect and to amend the entries in the register in accordance with such findings. This application was registered as Revenue Case No. 3-113-4/1959-60 and by order dated 2.X.1961, the Registrar Public Trust, Raipur approving the proposal made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur, appointed "Mahant Govindsharandas as Sarvarakar in place of ''''Mahant'''' Radhikadas on purely temporary basis which was to remain in force as long as board of trustees does not get constituted or does not take a decision regarding appointment of Sarvarakar.

It appears that Chhatradharilal filed an application u/s 26 (1) of the M. P. Public Trust Act stating therein that Nagridas temple was duly registered as public trust and a trust committee of 3 persons should be constituted. The said application was registered as Revenue Case No. 9-B/113 (4) of 1965-66. Various allegations were made by Chhatradharilal which were denied by "Mahant" Govindsharandas. After considering the entire material on record the Registrar, Public Trust by his order dated 16.4.66 held that no action either u/s 26 (1) or 26 (2) of M. P. Public Trust Act can be taken by him nor was such action called for. He accordingly rejected the said application filed by Chhatradharilal. It is also apparent from the records that another application u/s 26 (2) of the M. P. Public Trust Act was filed by one "Mahant" Purshottamdas and Nandkumar Dani against "Mahant" Govindsharandas which was registered as Revenue Case No. 10-B/113 (4) of 65-66. This application was also rejected by the Registrar, Public Trust by his order dated 16.4.66 holding that the application did not disclose any such expediency for seeking directions from the Civil Court u/s 26 (2) of the Act for administration of the trust property.

On 7.7.1966 Govindshrandas moved an application u/s 9 read with rule 6 of the M. P. Public Trust Act that in view of the decision of the Registrar Public Trust dated 16.4.66 (referred to above) as the objections of "Mahant" Purshottamdas and Chhatradharilal Subedar have Been rejected, necessary changes be made in the registrar of Public trust and the name of Govindsharandas he recorded as Sarvarakar in respect of the aforesaid temple and property of Shri Thakur Ramchandra Swami (Nagridas temple). This application formed part of Revenue Case No. 9-B/113(4) of 66-67 and by order dated 28.10.1968 the Registrar, Public Trust, Raipur held that "Mahant" Govindsharandas has been taking unfair advantage of appointment and avoiding consideration of board of trustees to which he would have been answerable. He was also of the opinion that amendment in the register would mean giving sanction to the actions of "Mahant" Govindsharandas. The application for registering the change was therefore rejected and it was directed that the change would be made only after the board of trustees decide the issue. It is pertinent to note that Krishnavatar S/o Chhatradharilal filed an application u/s 26 of the M. P. Public Trust Act for filling up vacancy of trustees by referring the question of appointment of a trust committee to the competent Court. The said application was registered as Revenue Case No. 4-B/113 (4). The said application was opposed by "Mahant" Govindsharandas, inter alia pleading that if application filed by Chhatradharilal and another application filed by "Mahant" Purshottamdas was rejected by the Registrar under orders dated 16.4.66, then a fresh application u/s 26 would not be maintainable and "Mahant" Govindsharandas would be deemed to be Sarvarakar.

After hearing the parties and considering the material on record by order dated 24.2.1966, the Registrar Public Trust directed "Mahant" Govindsharandas to make a reference to the Civil Court to seek directions for formation of the trust committee. He was directed to file the application by 30.4.1968 and the application proposed to be filed was required to be accompanied by a copy of the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer which formed basis of the order of the Registrar dated 30.8.1956 (registering the trust) and the entries at S. No. 91 of the register of Public trust. If appears that instead of making a reference "Mahant" Govindsharandas challenged the order dated 24.2.68 before this Court in M. P. No. 182/1968. This Court, by its judgment dated 2.5.1970, dismissing the petition, held that the Registrar at the time of making entry found that there were no proper trustees who could manage the trust and, therefore entered the name of "Mahant" Radhikadas and maintained that till receipt of reply from Civil Court. This Court further held that at the material the "Mahant" Radhikadas was permitted to act temporarily as a trustee. This Court was also of the opinion that the situation continued for long years and only then the application under dispute was made before the Registrar who felt the necessity that in the column No. 3 names of proper trustees and managers and their addresses have to be entered. According to this Court the power was discretionary with the Registrar and even if discretionary powers were once exercised there would be no application of Principles of resjulicata, the said discretionary powers could not be exercised in any way after a few years when the matter was looked at from a different angle. This Court ultimately dismissed the petition and upheld the order dated 24.2.1968.

Despite the order dated 24.2.1968 passed by the Registrar and undaunted by the order passed by this Court in M. P. No. 182/68, ''''Mahant'''' Govindsharandas did not make a reference to the Civil Court. Under these circumstances on 28.8.1970 the Registrar Public Trust, Raipur made a reference to the Civil Court u/s 26 of the Act. In the said application it was submitted that "Mahant Govindsharandas, the Sarvarakar was the only trustee and his appointment being of temporary nature, the Resgitrar requested Civil Court to make such inquiries as it deemed fit and pass necessary orders u/s 27 (2) (a) (b) (c) (d) and (f) of the Public Trust Act.

The said reference petition was registered as M. J. C. No. 35/1970. It appears from the record that an application under Order 40 Rule 1 C. P. C. for appointment or a receiver was filed. The said application was opposed by "Mahant" Govindsharandas by his reply dated 6.4.71. On 11.9.71 "Mahant" Govindsharandas and "Mahant" Purshattomdas filed separate replies to the application filed by the Registrar which were treated as their written statements. The Civil court by its order dated 13.10.71 ordered that a receiver be appointed to look after and manage the property of the trust. This order was challenged in M. A. No. 152/71 by "Mahant" Govindsharandas. But, this court by its judgment dated 28.974 confirmed the appointment of receiver and dismissed M. A. No. 152/71.

In continuation of the earlier reply filed on 11.9.71 "Mahant" Govindsharandas filed a supplementary reply on 1.11.75, inter alia, pleading that the reference application was not maintanable because; the original object of the public trust has not failed. The trust was and would be properly managed. The directions of the Court were not necessary for the administration of the trust and he (Govindsharandas) was fully competent in every respect to manage to affairs of the trust and should continue as Sarvarakar and sole trustee.

It appears from the record that probably the case was transferred from one court to another and was renumbered as M. C. J. No. 11/74. Apprehending that in view of the orders made in the order dated 16.12.77 by the First Addl. Distt. Judge he would not be heard further or was likely to be removed immediately. "Mahant" Govindsharandas filed Civil Rev. No. 121/78 before this Court. This Court in its judgment dated 17.7.79 holding that Addl. Distt. Judge was still to decide the questions in the light of earlier decisions relating to this institution reported in Jaiwantibai v. Nagridas 3 C.P.L.R. 11. (2) F. A No. 30 of 1925, the judgment in Radhikadas v. Gangaram & others (2) and the various orders passed by the Registrar confirmed by this Court, ordered that Govindsharandas has to be heard before a committee was formed. The said revision was accordingly dismissed.

On 15.6.81 "Mahant" Govindsharandas filed an application before the trial Court, inter alia, pleading that in spite of his objection against formation of the committee, the Court may form a committee to which he may be answerable in case he goes astray and for no other purpose. He further submitted that a committee may be constituted with his consent. The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time.

After hearing the parties and considering the entire material on record the learned trial court by its order dated 3.7.1981 appointed 9 persons as trustees under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of the Section 29 of the Act. He also framed scheme of management for the administration of Public Trust which was marked as Annexure- A and is part of the said order. The tiral Court also held that material charges relating to dis-honesty etc were proved against "Mahant" Govindsharandas and he was proved to be of a bad moral character, the trial Court further held that ''''Mahant'''' Govindsharandas had not become Mahant or Sarvarakar by virtue of being a disciple of late ''''Mahant'''' Radhikadas. According to the trial Court the appointment and assignment from the very inception was of temporary nature and his continuance in the management of the trust property and his capacity was of a temprary Sarvarakar. The trial Court also held that the findings recorded by the Registrar could be challenged only by instituting a suit permitted u/s 8 of the M. P. Public Trust Act and in absence of such a suit the order attained finality. The trial Court was of the opinion that neither Radhikadas nor Govinsharandas were Mahant of the said Math as defined under the Hindu Religious Endownment Act. The trial Court accordingly answered the reference made by the Registrar, Public Trust, Raipur and framed a scheme for management of the trust including appointment of 9 trustees.

The said order dated 3.7.1981 was challenged by "Mahant" Govindsharandas before this court in F. A. No. 113/81. This court by its judgment dated 13.7.198b held that the charges of dishonesty and immorality were prima facie not proved and in absence of the material evidence the findings recorded by the trial court should not be upheld. The learned single Judge was also of the opinion that "Mahant" Govindsharandas being Mahant, ought to have been included in the list of the trustees and in view of the subsequent development that one of the main trustee had expired, directed inclusion of "Mahant" Govindsharandas as one of the trustees in the panel of 9 trustees. The learned single Judge was also of the opinion that the trust property should be managed by the baord of trustees. The learned single judge also held that Krishnavatar was nominated as temporary working trustee and had taken charge of the property from receiver and as his appointment was temporary, the committee of trustees shall elect a working trustee from amongst themselves for the purpose. The working trustee Krishnavatar was directed to summon meeting of the trustees within the period fixed in that behalf. Appellant Givindsharandas being aggrieved by the findings recorded by thye Single Judge has preferred L. P. A. No. 68/86 and on the other hand, Krishanvatar Agarwal being aggrieved by the findings rocorded by the learned Single Judge in favour of "Mahant" Govindsharandas and inclusion of his name in the trust board, has filed L.P.A. No. 69/86.

We have heard both the sides at length.

Before we refer to the arguments of the parties, it would be necessary to refer to some of the definitions provided under the Act. Section 2 (2) of the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, defines ''math'' as under :-

"math" means an institution for the promotion of the Hindu religion presided over by a person whose duty it is to engage himself in imparling religious instructions or rendering spiritual service to a body of disciples or who exercise or claims to exercise headshipover such a body and includes places of religious worship or instruction which are appurtenant to the institution.

Section 2 (4) of the Act defines ''public trust'' as under :-

"Public trust" means an express or constructive trust for a public, religious or charitable purpose and includes a temple a math, a mosque, a church, wakf or any other religious or charitable endowment and a society formed for a religious or charitable purpose.

Section 2 (7) defined "trustee'' as under : "trustee'''' means a person in whom either alone or in association with other persons, the trust property is vested and includes a manager.

Section 2 (9) defines ''''Working trustee'''' as under :

"Working trustee" means any person who, for the time being, either alone or in association with some other person or persons administers the trust property or any public trust and includes a manager of a public trust and also includes -

(a) in the case of math, the head of such math;

(b) in the case of a wakf, a mutwalli of such wakf;

(c) in the case of public trust having its principal office or principal place of busines outside Madhya Pradesh, the person in charge of the management of the property and administration of the public trust.

In the matter of Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir (1) the Supreme Court has held as under :

Math means a place for the residence of ascetics and their pupils and the like. Since the time of Shankaracharya, who established Hindu Math''s these maths developed into institution devoted to the teaching of difference systems of Hindu religious philosophy, presided over by ascetics who were held in great reverence as religious preceptors, and princes and noblemen endowed these AIR 1980 (1) S.C. 707. institutions with large grants of property. Dr. Bijan Kumar Mukherjee in his Tagore Law Lectures on the Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trusts, 4th Ed. P. 321, succinctly states;

"Math" in ordinary language singnifies an abode or residence of ascetics. In legal parliance it connotes a monastic institution presided over by a superior and established for the use and benefit of ascetics belonging to a particular order who generally are disciples or co-disciples of the superior.

The peroperty belonging to a math is in fact attached to the office of the Mahant, and passed by inheritance to no one who does not fill the office. The head of a math, as such, is not a trustee in the sense in which that term is generally understood, but in legal contemplation he has an estate for life in the permanent endowments and an obsolute property in the income derived from the offerings of his followers, subject only to the burden of maintaining the institution. He is bound to spend a large part of the income derived from the offerings of the followers on charitable or religious objects. The words ''the burden or maintaining the institution'' must be understood to include the maintenance of the math, the support of its head and his disciples and the performance of religious and other charities in connection with it, in accordance with usage.

From these principles, it will be sufficiently clear that a math is an institutional sanctum presided over by a superior who combines in himself the dual office of being a religious or spiritual head of the particular cult or religious fraternity, and of the manager of the secular properties of the institution of the math,''

In the matter of Swami Harbansa Chari Ji vs. State, (1), this matter was again considered by a Division Bench of this Court and this Court has held as under:

Math in ordinary language signifies an abods and residence of ascetics. In legal terminology, it cannotes a monastic institution establsihed for the use and benefit of ascetics belonging to a particular order. It is presided over by a suprerior. The Hindu Maths were for the first time established by Shankar. Math is clearly distinct from the other religious trust known as Debuttar, the essential element of which is a deity or an idol. The presiding element in a Math is an ascetic or religious teacher. With his disciples and co-disciples, he forms a spiritual family. Both these institutions own their existence to grants of property made by pious benefactors. In the case of Debuttar, the grantee is an idol. In the case of Math, the benificiary of fraternity of religious men headed by superior or A. I. R. 1981 (1) M. P. 82.

Mahant represents the entire insittution. The primary object of Debuttar is to perpetuate the worship of a deity. It may, however, have provisions for feeding the poor as an adjunct to the worship of the deity. But that is not essential. The primary purpose of the Math is to encourage and foster spiritual learning. Competent teacher imparts religious instrutctions to the disciples who are followers of the particular school or order. Since the preceptors of this monastic institution (Math) combined only high standard of spiritual knowledge with moral purity, large grants of land were made in their favour by pirnces and noblemen. The worship of God was not excluded if it was essential as a part of the religious teachings of particular Math. It cannot, however, be said that there cannot be a Math without an idol. In case of a temple or a shrine of deity, a property vests in the idol as s juristic person. In case of Math, a property does not vest in the Mahant as it vests in the idol.

In the matter of Vidyavarulu v. Baluswami, A. I. R. 1922 P. C.123, the judicial Committee of the Privy Council has expressed its opinion in the following terms :

Call by whatever name, he is the manager and custodian of the insittution and the property which he holds is not vested in him; it is vested in the institution and is held by him as a manager on behalf of the same.

In the matter of Ram Prakash Das v. Anand Das, A. I. R. 1916 P. C. 256, it was observed: "It is, however, the rule that this property is held by the Mahant as its owner, and the succession to him in such property follows with the succession to the office. Tha nature of the ownership is, as has been said, an ownership in trust for the Math or institution itself and it must not be forgotten that although large administrative powers are undoubtedly vested in the reigning Mahant, this trust does exist and that it must be respected.''''

The Supreme Court in Shri Kalanka Devi Sansthan Vs. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and Others, , brought out a distinction between a manager or a shebait of an idol and a trustee. It was observed that the properties of the trust in law vest in the trustee whereas in the case of an idol or a Sansthan they do not vest in the manager or the shebait. It is the deity or the Sansthan which owns and holds the properties. Only possession and management vest in the manager. The Mahant, according to usage, has wide discretion in the application of the funds of the institution subject to obligations and duties equally prescribed by such custom and usage.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that Govind Sharan Das being the Mahant of the Math and being its religious head was beyond the purview of the Court and no judicial review of his acts could be made. According to him, as the properties vest, for the purpose of management in the Mahant, he could not be removed nor could he be replaced. These arguments are based basically placing reliance on the above two judgments reported in Krishna Singh vs. Mathura Ahir AIR 1980 S.C. 707 and Swami Harbansa Chari Ji and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, . The first question which we are called upon to decide is, therefore, whether the property in dispute in fact, before the registration, as a public trust, was a Math or a temple. It is to be seen from the reocrd that in August 1953, "Mahant Radhika Das moved an application u/s 4 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, for registration of the temple and its properties as Public trust. The said application clearly speaks that it was for registration of Nagridas temple which was a public trust for religious purposes. According to the said application, the temple was founded by one Gajraj Singh Agrawal who also installed the idols of Thakur Ramcharaji Swami in the above said temple. According to the application, one Madhukar Rao dedicated there villages of Hasaud. Charoda and Parsatti in Raipur Tahsil to the said deity for purpose of Bhog-Raj of the deity, due perfomance of the temple fastivals and the maintenance of the said temple, with the concurrence of the then Raja of Nagpur. who agreed to continue the grant to the deity. On the same terms on which it was agreed to by its founder. The application further says that subsequently one more village, namely, Thonga in Mahasamund tahsil was also endowed to the deity. According to the application, the said Nagridas temple was a public trust the religious purpose. The institution was for promotion of Hindu religion and the worship of the deity of Shri Ramchandra Swami which is installed therein. Further the application says that it is presided over by the Mahant or Sarvarakar who is also the trustee of the said temple and manages and supervises over the spirtitual as well as temporal matters of the said trust. The application refers to the mode of succession to the trusteeship and managership. It states that the succession to the Gaddi of the trusteeship is from Guru to Chela. It is thus clear, keeping in view the distinction made by the Supreme Court and this Court, that the institution in dispute in fact was not a math. A math is certainly distinct from a temple. A math, in ordinary language, signifies an abode and residence of ascetics, but a temple is something different. The presiding element in a math is an ascetic or religious teacher, with his disciples and co-disciples he forms a spiritual family. In the case of a temple the grantee is the idol. In the case of a math, the beneficiary is fraternity of religious men headed by superior or Mahant who represents the entire institution. The primary object of Debutter is to perpetuate the worship of a deity. In the instant case, it is clear from the application filed in the year 1953 by Radhikadas, that the property in dispute was in fact a temple or Debutter property. Large pieces of lands were dedicated to the deity and if a Pujari or manager or a person as "mahant" of the said temple was looking after the property, maintanance of the temple and was performing Pooja Archana, it would not convert the property or institution into a math. Under these circumstances, we have to hold that the institution or properly in dispute is a public temple.

Once it is held that the institution in dispute was not a math, then the protection claimed by the Mahant that his actions arc beyond the purview of judicial review is not available to him. Even assuming for the sake of argument that it was a math, then too it lost its character of a math after being registered as a public trust. In case of the public trust, the property would vest in the trustee and the management would be in the hands of the trustee under the control and suprevision of the Registrar of Public Trusts. The first ground, therefore, has to be rejected.

The definitions of the word ''public trust'' in section 2 (4) of the Act has not been found to be satisfactory. It has been held by this Court in the matter of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mother Superior Convent School and Another, . that the word ''includes'' in the definition is unfortunate and what was really meant thereby was not something imperative which the words ''means and include'' when used indicate. According to Section 2 (2) of the Act, math means an institution for the promotion of Hindu religion presided over by a person whose duty is to impart religious instructions or to render spiritual service to a body of disciples. In the instant case, there is no evidence to show or suggest that the temple is an institution presided over by a person whose duty is to impart religious insturctions or render spiritual service to the body of disciples.

Section 2 (4), as quoted above, defines public trust. A public trust would include a temple, math, etc. In the instant case, the "Mahant" says that it is a math, while, on the other hand, the trustees say that it is a temple. We have found it is a temple. In any case, whether it is math or a temple, it is a public trust. The application tiled by Radhikadas puts a curtain to the dispute, when he clearly and unequivocally stated that it was a temple in which the idol of Thakur Ramchandraji was installed.

27, Before the learned single Judge, it was contended by Krishna Awatar Agrawal that a committee of 9 trustees cannot be constituted. The learned Single Judge held that the Court had power and authority not only to appoint or remove a trustee but also to frame a scheme for proper management of the public trust. Before us, this argument now has been raised for "Mahant" Govind Sharan Das and, on the other hand, respondent No. 3, Krishna Awatar Agrawal, through his counsel, submits that the appointment of 9 trustees was legal and proper to have a proper check. Counsel for the appellant Govind Sharan Das submitted that in the earlier judgment, it has been held that a committee of 3 persons only should he appointed. According to him, if there is a judicial dictum that three persons should he appointed, then 9 persons could not be appointed as trustees. We are unable to accept this argument. The earlier judgments were delivered in the disputes when the property and the temple were not registered as public trust. The ealrer judgments came to be delivered in the disputes between the members of the founder''s family and others. Such judgments would lose their efficacy after the property has been registered as public trust. The learned single Judge was absolutely right in holding that the Court has jurisdiction to appoint any new trustee and also has jurisdiction to appoint more trustees, while providing for a scheme of the management of the trust property. Section 27 of the Act refers to the powers of the Court. u/s 27 (2) (b), the Court has power to appoint new trustees and under sub-clause (d), the Court can provide a scheme of management of the trust property. If the Court has such powers, then under the compelling circumstances, the court can certainly appoint 9 trustees, while framing the scheme of management of the trust property. The jurisdiction and power of the Court to provide for a scheme of management are wider. The earlier orders passed in the civil suits would not be binding either on the Registrar or on the civil court after the registration of the property as public trust.

Learned counsel for the appellant "Mahant" submitted that even if a trust committee is to be formed, he being the Mahant and head of the institution has to be treated as a working trustee, u/s 2 (9) of the Act. According to section 2 (9) ''working trustee'' means any person and also includes (a) in the case of math, the head of such math. We have already found that the institution in dispute is not a math. Therefore, the present appellant cannot calim to be working trustee". From the definition of the word ''working trustee "given under the Act, it is curious to note that a working trustee need not be a trustee as defined under the Act. The property necessarily did not vest in such working trustee. The only requirement of working trustee is that he should be administering the trust property. The definition of the word ''working trustee'' has been artificially extended to include the head of such math. According to section 2 (7), ''trustee'' means a person in whom either alone or in association with other persons, the trust property is vested and includes a manager. Trustee is a person in whom the trust property vests for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Although a trustee is legally owner of the trust property, the beneficial ownership vests in the beneficiaries. The manager of a trust, legally speaking, is not and cannot he a trustee. The Act makes a departure in this respect and includes the manager also in the definition of a trustee. The object appears to be to make the manager responsible and anwerable with the duty and liabilites of the trustees because in fact he would be the person in charge of day to day management and administration of the trust.

While Section 2 (7) of the Act speaks of a trustee meaning a person in whom either alone or in association with other persons the trust property is vested, section 2 (9) of the Act states that a working trustee means any person who, for the time being, either alone or in association with some other person or persons, administers the trust property or any public trust and include a manager and also includes the head of such math. According Section 2 (7), the property vests in the trustee, while, according to section 2 (9), the management vest in the working trustee. The Legislature, in its wisdom, therefore, has clearly said that the manager would he included in the definition of the trustee and also in the definition of the working trustee, hut the head of the math would not he deemed to he trustee, nor would he be inclucded in the said definition. A working trustee need not be a trustee even. His work is only to administer and manage the trust property. Once it is held that the property is not ''Math'' then the appellant cannot even claim to he a working trustee. He, at best, at the time when the trust was registered, was a manager. According to the application of Radhikadas, he was a trustee and manager. He nowhere stated that he was a Mahant also. On the face of this application, it cannot be held that Rahhikadas or any of his successor would be a Mahant of the said property which is sought to be shown as property of a math. The trustee have to elect and select a working trustee from amongst themselves. A working trustee has to be assigned duties. The trustee must repose absolute confidence in him because he is the person who, under the control and suprevision of the trust board, would perform day to day working and management of the property. Under these curcimstances, it cannot be held that the trustees are or would be subordinate to the working trustee. We have already held that a working trustee need not be a trustee even. The power in favour of the working trustee flows from the trustees. A working trustee would be subordinate to the trustees of the trust Board. If a working trustee is not a trustee, then he, at best, would be the manager and always answerable to the appointed trustee. He cannot claim that the other trustees are subordinate to him. Even if any of the trustees is made a working trustee, he is answerable to the trust Board. The working trustee would not hold any autonomous office but would always be annswerable to the trust board.

The learned trial Court, in its judgment, while appointing the trust committee, held that as various charges of moral turpitude are alleged and proved against the appellant Mahant, he cannot be included in the trust Board. The said findings were challegned before the learned Single Judge who, in our opinion, rightly held that the charges were not proved. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant "Mahant" could not be removed because, according to him, the property and the management was always with the appellant. We are unable to accept this contention, firstly, because the appellant was not a Mahant nor the institution was math and even if the appellant is treated to be a wroking trustee, the power to appoint working-trustee ultimately vests in the trust Board and it can appoint him as working trustee or revmove him. If this power can be exercised by the trustees, then the Court which is framing scheme of management of the trust property certainly can exercise such power and can always remove a trustee or working trustee. In the instant case, assuming the appellant was the working trustee, then exercising the power u/s 27 (2) of the Act, the Court has ample jurisdiction to remove the appellant from the Board of trustees. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter contended that the appellant should be continued as the sole trustee. This argument runs counter to the application filed by Radhikadas. Radhikadas himself submitted in the application that Nagridas temple be registered as public trust. Once it is registered as public trust, then obviously it is under the control and supervision of the Registrar of Public Trusts as the property would vest in the trustees. In the instant case, no infirmity can he. found in the order of the learned trial Court, framing a scheme for management of the trust property. The appellant calims his rights through Radhikadas. he has stepped into the shoes of Rahikadas and, therefore, would be bound by the acts of Radhikadas, If on the application of Radhikadas, the property was registered as public trust and a committee was proposed to be appointed, then after the earlier orders have attained finaility, the present appellant cannot submit before this Court that he should be considered to be the sole trustee.

Learned counsel for the respondent (appellant in L. P. A. No: 69 of 1986) submitted that the order of the learned single Judge, including the name of "Mahant'''' Govind Sharan Das in the trust Board is illegal. It was also submitted that Mahant Govind Sharan das disobeyed the order of the Registrar by not making a reference to the Civil Court. According to him the Registrar, by his order dated 24.2.1968, directed the appellant to make a reference, but challenging the order he filed a writ petition before the High Court. The apppellant himself claims to be "Mahant" of the property and if he was advised that the directions given by the Registrar or Public Trusts are contrary or affect his interest, then certainly he was entitled to challenge the said order before the competent Court. In the judicial system, it cannot be held that if a man goes to some Court challenging an adverse order, such act amounts to misconduct. If the argument is accepted, then it would lead to conditions of lawlesseness. If an authority passes an order against some body who is subordinate to him or is under his jurisdiction and if the latter challenges the order before the competent Court, it cannot be treated as insubordination or disobedience of the order. Our judicial system does not recognises such a plea. Rule of law clearly postulates that if a person is aggrieved by any order, then he can ordinarly go to a civil Court or if his fundamental rights are affected, then he can approach the High Court. If the appellant was of the opinion that by the order, the Registrar was making in roads into his fights, he was certainly entitled to challenge the siad order before the competent Court. The appellant was claiming right to administer the properiteis of the trust. Even the old Hindu Law recognises such an authority. The right of a working trustee is curtailed under different laws, but even if he was ill-advised, it cannot be held that he was disobeying orders. The attempt of the appellant in approaching the High Court cannot disqualify him from being a trustee. The Registrar was a party to the writ petition and at that time he did not propose any action which, prima facie, shows that, the Registrar was also awaiting decision of the Court. No fault can be found with the appellant and it cannot be held that he disobeyed or flouted the orders of the Registrar.

Learned counsel for the respondent then contended that the order of the learned Single Judge in including the appellant in the trust Board, is illegal and unjustifiable. In our opinion, this argument cannot be accepted. The learned single Judge, while considering the sutability of the appellant for inclusion in the trust Board was impressed by the fact that the appellant was acquitted of the charges of moral turpitude. Once these charges are not proved against him, it cannot be held that, he was disqualified to act as a trustee. The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appellant was wrongly excluded from consideration. It is also to be seen that the appellant has working as temporary Sarvarakar for about five years and had sufficient experience and knowledge of the trust. The learned trial Court did not consider this qualification of the appellant in his favour because it misguided itself by holding that the charges of moral terpitude, etc. were proved against the appellant. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was also right in not remanding the case for reconsideration of the formation of the trust Board. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the appeal, one of the trustees namely, Ghanshyan Prasad Tiwari died and, therefore, there is a vacancy available. The learned single Judge was right in holding that he appellant Mahant should also be included in the trust Board in place of Tiwari so that the committee of 9 trustees remains intact. In our opinion both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

The respondent Krishana Awatar Agrawal, appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 69 of 1986, was nominated as temporary working trustee and was in charge of the property, from the receiver. Since his appointment was temporary, the committee of the trustees, which would include the appellant Mahant, also would hold a meeting immediately and shall elect the working trustee from amongst themselves. Krishna Awatar Agrawal shall call a meeting of the committee of trustees within a period of two months from the date of this judgment and the committee, in its meeting, shall appoint a working trustee.. If krishana Awatar Agrawal fails to call a meeting, then the Registrar of Public Trusts would summon a meeting for her said purpose. In case the temporary working trustee Krishan Awatar Agrawal fails to summon the meeting, then it would be deemed to be disobedience of the order of this Court and he would stand disqualified for being elected as trustee or working trustee.

Both the above appeals in view of the aforesaid discussion, are dimissed, However, there shall be no orders as to costs.