{"id":199057,"date":"1959-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1959-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959"},"modified":"2018-07-03T04:27:40","modified_gmt":"2018-07-02T22:57:40","slug":"mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959","title":{"rendered":"Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In … on 15 April, 1959"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In … on 15 April, 1959<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 942, \t\t 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 503<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Das, S.K., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAHANT MOTI DAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS. P. SAHI, THE SPECIAL OFFICER IN CHARGEOF HINDU RELIGIOUS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/04\/1959\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1959 AIR  942\t\t  1959 SCR  Supl. (2) 503\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1959 SC 951\t (4)\n R\t    1959 SC1002\t (6)\n F\t    1959 SC1073\t (9,14)\n R\t    1960 SC 554\t (8,9)\n E\t    1980 SC 161\t (12)\n RF\t    1991 SC 672\t (33)\n\n\nACT:\nHindu  Religious  Trusts-Constitutional\t validity  of  Bihar\nHindu  Religious Trusts Act-Difference between Hindus,\tJain\nand   Sikh  religious\ttrusts-Legislative   classification-\nRestrictions   imposed\ton   trustees-Validity-Whether\t Act\ninterferes  with Practice of religion-Levy of a fee for\t the\nexpenses  of  administration  of  Act  Legality-Bihar  Hindu\nReligious  Trusts Act, 1950 (Bihar 1 of 1951), SS. 2, 5,  6,\n7, 8, 28, 29, 32, 55(2), 60, 70-ConstitutiOn of India, Arts.\n14, 19(1)(f), 19(5), 25, 26, 27.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants\t as the Mahants of the respective  maths  or\nasthals\t were served with notices under s. 59 of  the  Bihar\nHindu  Religious Trusts Act, 195o, by the  President,  Bihar\nState  Board  of Religious Trusts, asking  them\t to  furnish\nstatements   and  accounts  of\tthe  properties\t  in   their\npossession.  They challenged the constitutional validity  of\nthe  Act  by  proceedings taken in the\tHigh  Court  on\t the\ngrounds\t (1) that ss. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the  Act  infringe\nArt.   14  Of  the  Constitution,  inasmuch  as\t there\t was\ninequality of treatment as between Hindu religious trusts on\none hand and Sikh religious trusts on the other, the  latter\nhaving\tbeen excluded from the purview of the Act, and\tthat\nthere  was  inequality of treatment even  as  between  Hindu\nreligious trusts and Jain religious trusts, though both came\nunder the Act; (2) that the provisions of ch.  V of the\t Act\nand in particular ss. 28 and 32 violate Art. 19(1)(f) of the\nConstitution,  as  under  those\t provisions  the  mahant  or\nShebait\t practically  loses his right of management  and  is\nreduced to the position of a mere servant of the Board;\t (3)\nthat the provisions of the Act contravene Arts. 25 and 26 of\nthe Constitution, as the power to alter or modify the budget\nrelating  to  a\t religious  trust  or  the  power  to\tgive\ndirections  to\ta trustee may be exercised by the  Board  in\nsuch  a\t way as to affect the due  observance  of  religious\npractices  in the math or temple; (4) that s. 70 imposes  an\nunauthorised  tax,  and (5) that s. 55(2)  contravenes\tArt.\nI33 of the Constitution.\nHeld,  (1)  that in view of the fact that in the  matter  of\nreligious   trusts  in\tthe  State  of\tBihar,\t there\t are\ndifferences  between  Sikhs, Hindus and jains and  that\t the\nneeds of jains and Hindus are not the same in the matter  of\nthe administration of\n564\ntheir  respective religious trusts, it is open to the  Bihar\nLegislature to exclude Sikhs who might have been in no\tneed\nof  protection and to distinguish between Hindus and  jains.\nAccordingly,  SS.  2,  5,  6, 7, and 8 of  the\tAct  do\t not\ninfringe Art. 14 Of the Constitution.\nIt  is\twell  settled  that  while  Art.  14  forbids  class\nlegislation,  it does not forbid  reasonable  classification\nfor  the purposes of legislation, and in order to  pass\t the\ntest  of permissible classification, two conditions must  be\nfulfilled,  namely,  (1)  that the  classification  must  be\nfounded\t on an intelligible differentia which  distinguished\npersons or things that are grouped together from others left\nout  of the group and (2) that that differentia must have  a\nrational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the\nstatute in question.\nShri  Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.  R.\t Tcndollkar,<\/a>\n[1959] S.C.R. 279, relied on.\n(2)  that  having  regard to the position of  a\t trustee  in\nrespect of the trust property which he holds and the  object\nor purpose of the Act, the restrictions imposed in Ch.\tV of\nthe  Act  are  really for the purpose of  carrying  out\t the\nobjects\t of  the trust and for\tthe  better  administration,\nprotection and preservation of the trust properties, and are\nreasonable  restrictions  in the interests  of\tthe  general\npublic\twithin\tthe  meaning Of cl. (5) Of Art.\t 19  of\t the\nConstitution.\n(3)  that the Act does not contravene Arts. 25 and 26 of the\nConstitution,  as the provisions of the Act relating to\t the\npower  of  the\tBoard  to  alter  the  budget  and  to\tgive\ndirections  to\tthe  trustee are  subject  to  restrictions,\nnamely,\t that they must be for the proper administration  of\nthe  religious trust ; and, further, none of the  provisions\ninterfere  with \" matters of religion \" including  practices\nwhich  a  religious  denomination regards  as  part  of\t its\nreligion.\n(4)  that  S. 70 Of the Act is a valid provision as it\tonly\nprovides for the levy of a fee for the purpose of  defraying\nthe   expenses\t incurred   or\tto  be\t incurred   in\t the\nadministration of the Act and is not a tax.\nMahant\tSri  jagannath Ramanuj Das v. The State\t of  Orissa,\n[1954] S.C.R. 1046, followed.\n(5)  that S. 55(2) Of the Act does not contravene Art.\t I33\nOf  the\t Constitution  as it does not  override\t or  is\t not\nintended  to override Art. 133 or any other Article  of\t the\nConstitution relating to appeals to the Supreme Court.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Civil, APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 225,\t226,
\n228, 229 and 248 of 1955.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals from the judgments and orders dated October 5, 1953,
\nin Misc.  Judicial Cases Nos. 418\/52 and 124\/53 and  October
\n8, 1953., in T. S. No. 106\/53,
\n565<\/span>
\nMisc.\tJudicial Cases Nos. 188\/53 and 235\/53 of  the  Patna
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
R.   Patnaik, for the appellant (in C. A. No. 225\/55).
\nR.   C.Prasad, for the appellants (in C. As.  Nos. 226, 228,
\n229 & 248\/55).\n<\/p>\n
Mahabir\t Prasad,  Advocate-General for the State  of  Bihar,
\nTribeni\t Prdsad Sinha and S. P. Varma, for  the\t respondents
\n(in C. As.  Nos. 225, 226, 228 & 229\/55).\n<\/p>\n
Mahabir Prasad, Advocate-General for the State of Bihar\t and
\nS. P. Varma, for the respondent (in C. A. No. 248\/55).
\n1959.\t  April 15.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby’
\nS.   K.\t DAS, J.-This is a batch of five appeals which\thave
\nbeen heard together and the principal question for  decision
\nin these appeals is the constitutional validity of the Bihar
\nHindu  Religious  Trusts  Act,,\t 1950  (Bihar  I  of  1951),
\nhereinafter  referred to as the Act.  Four of these  appeals
\narise  out  of writ proceedings taken in the High  Court  of
\nPatna  on  petitions  made under Arts. 226 and\t227  of\t the
\nConstitution.  One of them, namely, Civil Appeal No. 228  of
\n1955,  arises out of a suit which was originally  instituted
\nin the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Patna but was later
\ntransferred to the High Court by an order made by it  tinder
\nArt.  228 of the Constitution.\tThe Petitioners in the\twrit
\npetitions  and\tthe plaintiffs in the  suit  challenged\t the
\nconstitutional\tvalidity  of the Act on certain\t grounds  to
\nwhich we shall presently refer.\t The petitions and the\tsuit
\nwere  contested by the State of Bihar and\/or the  President,
\nBihar  State  Board  of\t Religious  ,trusts,  who  are\t now
\nrespondents before us.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court  in three  separate  judgments,  two  dated
\nOctober\t 5, 1953, and the third dated October 8, 1953,\theld
\nthat  the Act was a valid piece of legislation and  on\tthat
\nmain finding dismissed the writ petitions and the suit.\t The
\npetitioners  and  the  plaintiff-,,  appellants\t before\t us,
\napplied\t for and obtained certificates from the\t High  Court
\nunder  Art. 132 of the Constitution to the effect  that\t the
\ncases involved substantial ques-\n<\/p>\n
566<\/span><\/p>\n
tions  of law as to the interpretation of  the\tConstitution
\nand the appeals have been brought to this Court in pursuance
\nof those certificates.\n<\/p>\n
The facts lie within a very narrow compass.  In Civil Appeal
\nNo.  225  of 1955 the appellant is Mahant Moti Das,  and  he
\nalleged\t that he was the Mahant of a math or astral  situate
\nin village Parbatta, district Monghyr, in Bihar, that he was
\na follower of the religion founded by Sri Kabir Sahib,\tthat
\nthe  properties\t of  the  asthal  were\ttreated\t as  private
\nproperties  of\tthe mahants and that the  President  of\t the
\nBihar State Board of Religious Trusts constituted under\t the
\nAct had no authority to serve him with a notice under s.  59
\nof  the\t Act,  inasmuch\t as the\t Act  was  ultra  vires\t and
\nunconstitutional  and,\tin any event, did not apply  to\t his
\nmath  or  asthal.   In\tCivil Appeal No.  226  of  1955\t the
\nappellant  Mahant Ram Das similarly alleged that he was\t the
\nmahant\tof a math or asthal situate in village\tBhuthari  in
\nthe same district of Monghyr, that he was a “bairagi sadhu ”
\nand follower of Ramanandi Laskari Sri Vaishnava\t Sampradaya,
\nthat  he was the absolute owner of the properties  belonging
\nto  the\t math and that the President, Bihar State  Board  of
\nReligious Trusts, had no authority to issue a notice to\t him
\nasking\thim  to\t furnish  statements  and  accounts  of\t the
\nproperties  in his possession.\tIn Civil Appeal No.  228  of
\n1955 the appellants made similar allegations in their plaint
\nand challenged the ” vires ” of the Act, mentioning as their
\ncause  of  action  the\tdate on\t which\tthe  assent  of\t the
\nPresident  of  India to the Act was first published  in\t the
\nBihar  Gazette.\t  In  Civil  Appeal  No.  229  of  1955\t the
\nappellant  Mahant Mahabir Das stated that he was the  Mahant
\nof  a asthal known as Bisanpur Asthal situate in  the  self-
\nsame   district.   He  also  received  a  notice  from\t the
\nPresident, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts, to furnish
\nstatements and accounts, and he challenged the vires of\t the
\nAct  on\t similar grounds.  In Civil Appeal No. 248  of\t1955
\nMahant Ram Krishna Das alleged that the temple in  question,
\nknown  as  Bhikam as Thakurbari in the town  of\t Patba,\t was
\nconstructed  by\t one  Benidasji with his own  money  and  he
\ninstalled certain deities therein.\n<\/p>\n
567<\/span><\/p>\n
The  allegation\t was  that the\ttemple\tand  the  properties
\nthereof did not constitute a ‘ religious trust ‘ within\t the
\nmeaning\t of that expression in the Act and further that\t the
\nAct  was  ultra\t vires\tthe  Constitution  inasmuch  as\t  it
\ninfringed  some of his fundamental rights.  The\t defence  in
\nall  these cases was that the Act was valid, and applied  to
\nthe  asthals  or  temple  in  question\tand  the  properties
\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n
The principal argument presented before us on behalf of\t the
\nappellants  is\tthat the Act is bad on the ground  that\t its
\nseveral\t provisions  infringe  the  appellants’\t fundamental
\nrights guaranteed under (a) Art. 14; (b) Art. 19 (1)(f); and\n<\/p>\n
(e)  Arts. 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution.  The  Act\t has
\nalso  been  impugned  on  the  ground  that  it\t imposes  an
\nUnauthorised  tax  and\talso contravenes  Art.\t133  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
At  this stage, it is necessary to advert to the  object  or
\npurpose\t of  the  Act and set out  the\trelevant  provisions
\nthereof\t The  Act was passed by the  Bihar  Legislature\t and
\nreceived  the  assent of the President,,  which\t assent\t was
\npublished  in the Bihar Gazette on February 21,\t 1951.\t The
\nlong  title of the Act and the preamble give the  object  of
\nthe Act.  The long title says that it is an “Act to  provide
\nfor the better administration of Hindu Religious Trusts\t and
\nfor   the   protection\tand   preservation   of\t  properties
\nappertaining to such trusts.” The preamble repeats the\tsame
\nobject\tor purpose, and makes it further clear that the\t Act
\nis  meant to provide for the better administration of  Hindu
\nReligious Trusts in the State of Bihar.\t Section I gives the
\nshort  title, and provides for extent and commencement,\t the
\nAct having come into force on August 15, 1951.\tSection 2 is
\nthe  definition\t section, and the word ‘Hindu’\tin  the\t Act
\nmeans  a person professing any religion of Hindu origin\t and
\nincludes a Jain and a Buddhist, but does not include a Sikh.
\nThe  expressions ” religious trust ” and ” trust property  ”
\nare defined in the following way :-\n<\/p>\n
“Section  2  (1).  I religious trust’ means any\t express  or
\nconstructive  trust  created  or existing  for\tany  purpose
\nrecognised   by\t Hindu\tLaw  to\t be  religious,\t  pious\t  or
\ncharitable, but shall not include a trust created
\n568<\/span>
\naccording to the Sikh religion or purely for the benefit  of
\nthe  Sikh community and a private endowment created for\t the
\nworship\t of  a\tfamily\tidol in which  the  public  are\t not
\ninterested ;\n<\/p>\n
(p)  I trust property’ means the property appertaining to  a
\nreligious trust
\nSection 3 states:\n<\/p>\n
”  This\t Act shall apply to all\t religious  trusts,  whether
\ncreated\t before or after the commencement of this  Act,\t any
\npart  of the property of which is situated in the  State  of
\nBihar.\t”\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 4  was\t amended by Bihar Act 16  of  1954,  and  it
\nprovides for necessary amendment or repeal, as the case\t may
\nbe,  of certain earlier Acts dealing with  public  religious
\ntrusts\tand  charitable endowments, such as,  the  Religious
\nEndowments Act, 1863 (20 of 1863), the Charitable Endowments
\nAct,  1890  (6\tof 1890) and the  Charitable  and  Religious
\nTrusts Act, 1920 (14 of 1920).\tSub-section (5) of s. 4\t has
\nan  important bearing on one of the questions before us\t and
\nmust be quoted in full :\n<\/p>\n
“Section  4  (5).  The Religious Endowments Act,  1863,\t and
\nsection\t 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall\t not
\napply  to any religious trust in this State, as\t defined  in
\nthis Act.”\n<\/p>\n
Chapter\t II  of the Act deals with the constitution  of\t the
\nBoard.\tSection 5 provides for the constitution of the Bihar
\nState  Board of Religious Trusts.  Section 5(3) states\tthat
\nthe Board shall be a body corporate and shall have perpetual
\nsuccession and a common seal with power to acquire and\thold
\nproperty,  both\t moveable and immovable.   Section  7  makes
\nprovision  for\tthe  appointment of the\t President  and\t the
\nmembers\t of  the  first Board and  their  terms\t of  office.
\nSection\t 8  contains the terms of the  constitution  of\t the
\nsecond and every subsequent Board.  Chapter IV refers to the
\nappointment  and qualification of the Superintendent of\t the
\nreligious  trusts.   The chapter further  provides  for\t the
\nappointment of officers and servants for the Board.  Chapter
\nV relates to the power and duties of the Board.\t Section  28
\n(1)  provides  that  the  general  superintendence  of\t all
\nreligious trusts in the State shall be vested in the
\n569<\/span>
\nBoard  and  the\t Board shall do all  things  reasonable\t and
\nnecessary to ensure that such trusts are properly supervised
\nand  administered  and\tthat the  income’  thereof  is\tduly
\nappropriated  and applied to the objects of such trusts\t and
\nin  accordance with the purposes for which such trusts\twere
\nfounded and for which they exist.  Section 28 (2) enumerates
\nin great detail the powers and duties of the Board in regard
\nto  certain matters.  Section 28(2)(e), for example,  states
\nthat  the duty of the Board shall be to cause inspection  to
\nbe  made  of the property and the office  of  any  religious
\ntrust including accounts and to authorise the Superintendent
\nor  any\t of  its  members, officers  or\t servants  for\tthat
\npurpose.   Section  28(2)(g)  empowers\tthe  Board  to\tgive
\ndirections  for\t the proper administration  of\ta  religious
\ntrust  in accordance with the law governing such  trust\t and
\nthe  wishes of the founder in so far as such wishes  can  be
\nascertained.   Section\t32 empowers the Board  to  settle  a
\nscheme\tfor the proper administration of  religious  trusts.
\nChapter\t VI refers to the establishment of  regional  trusts
\ncommittees  and\t the  powers  and  duties  imposed  on\tsuch
\ncommittees.   Chapter VIII refers to transfer  of  immovable
\nproperties  and borrowing of money by trustees.\t Section  44
\nof  this chapter states that no transfer made by a  trustee,
\nof  any\t immovable property of a religious trust by  way  of
\nsale,  mortgage, or lease for a term exceeding\tthree  years
\nshall be valid unless made with the previous sanction of the
\nBoard.\tSection 45 prohibits a trustee from borrowing  money
\nfor the purpose of any religious trust without the  previous
\nsanction  of the Board.\t Chapter X relates to  trustees\t and
\ntheir duties.  Section 59 of this chapter imposes a duty  on
\nthe  trustee to furnish particulars of the religious  trust.
\nSection\t 60  relates to the budget of religious\t trusts\t and
\nsubmission  of such budgets to the Board and the  Board\t may
\nalter or modify the budget in such manner and to such extent
\nas  it thinks fit.  Chapter Xi relates to audit of  accounts
\nand  recovery  of irregular expenses from  the\ttrustees  in
\ndefault.  Chapter XIII provides for the creation of a  trust
\nfund which is to be vested in the 72
\n570<\/span>
\nBoard.\tSection 70 states that for the purpose of  defraying
\nthe  expenses incurred in the administration of the Act\t the
\ntrustee of every religious trust shall pay to the Board such
\nfee, not exceeding five per centum of its net income as\t the
\nBoard  may from time to time with the previous\tsanction  of
\nthe  State Government determine.  Chapter XVI  provides\t for
\nthe  dissolution or supersession of the Board.\t Section  80
\nstates\tthat if in the opinion of the State  Government\t the
\nBoard makes default in the performance of the duties imposed
\non it or exceeds or abuses its powers, the State  Government
\nmay  declare the Board to be in default and direct that\t the
\nBoard  shall be superseded.  Section 81 provides that  where
\nan order of supersession has been passed, all the members of
\nthe Board shall vacate their offices as such members and all
\nthe powers and duties to be performed by the Board shall  be
\nperformed by such person as the State Government may direct.
\nSection\t 81 empowers the State Government to make rules\t and
\ns.  83 empowers the Board to make bye-laws not\tinconsistent
\nwith the Act and the rules made thereunder.
\nWe  proceed now to consider the contentions urged on  behalf
\nof  the\t appellants.   The  first  contention  is  that\t the
\nprovisions  in ss. 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 infringe Art. 14 of\t the
\nConstitution.  It is pointed out that the definition of\t the
\nword  ‘\t Hindu’ in s. 2 does riot include Sikhs;  and  s.  5
\nconstitutes  a\tBoard for religious trusts other  than\tJain
\nreligious  trusts,  and\t also two  separate  Boards-one\t for
\nSwetambar  Jain religious trusts and the other for  Digambar
\nJain religious trusts.\tIt is further pointed out that under
\nss.  6, 7 and 8 the constitution of the Board for  religious
\ntrusts other than Jain religious trusts differs in  material
\nparticulars from the constitution of the two Boards for Jain
\nreligious   trusts.   The  submission  is  that\t  there\t  is
\ninequality of treatment as between Hindu religious trusts on
\none hand and Sikh religious trusts on the other, the  latter
\nhaving been excluded from the purview of the Act;  secondly,
\nthere  is  inequality  of treatment even  as  between  Hindu
\nreligious trusts and Jain religious trusts, though both come
\nunder the Act.\tWe do not
\n571<\/span>
\nthink  that there is any substance in this contention.\t The
\nprovisions  of Art. 14 of the Constitution had come  up\t for
\ndiscussion  before this Court in a number of  earlier  cases
\n(see  the  cases referred to in Shri Ram Krishna  Dalmia  v.
\nShri  Justice  S.  R. Tendolkar<\/a>\t (1)).\t It  is,  therefore,
\nunnecessary  to enter upon any lengthy discussion as to\t the
\nmeaning,  scope and effect of the Article.  It is enough  to
\nsay that it is now well settled by a series of decisions  of
\nthis Court that while Art. 14 forbids class legislation,  it
\ndoes  not forbid reasonable classification for the  purposes
\nof legislation, and in order to pass the test of permissible
\nclassification,\t two conditions must be\t fulfilled,  namely,
\n(1)   that  the\t classification\t must  be  founded   on\t  an
\nintelligible  differential  which distinguishes\t persons  or
\nthings that are grouped together from others left out of the
\ngroup and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation
\nto  the\t object\t sought to be achieved\tby  the\t statute  in
\nquestion.   The classification may be founded  on  different
\nbases  such  as, geographical, or according  to\t objects  or
\noccupations  and  the  like.  The decisions  of\t this  Court
\nfurther\t establish that there is a presumption in favour  of
\nthe constitutionality of an enactment and the burden is upon
\nhim  who  attacks  it to show that there has  been  a  clear
\ntransgression of the constitutional guarantee ; that it must
\nbe  presumed that the legislature understands and  correctly
\nappreciates  the needs of its own people and that  its\tlaws
\nare  directed  to problems made manifest by  experience\t and
\nthat its discriminations are based on adequate grounds;\t and
\nfurther that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of
\nharm  and may confine its restrictions to those cases  where
\nthe  need is deemed to be the clearest.\t It is not  disputed
\nbefore us, and this has been pointed out by the High  Court,
\nthat  there are some differences between Hindus,  Sikhs\t and
\nJains  in some of the essential details of the\tfaith  which
\nthey  profess and the religious practices they observe;\t the
\nSikhs have no caste or priests, though they have grantis who
\nofficiate  at  marriages and other ceremonies; they  do\t not
\nbelieve\t in the Vedas, Puranas or Shastras, at least not  in
\nthe same
\n(1)  [1959] S.C.R. 279.\n<\/p>\n
372<\/span><\/p>\n
way  as the Hindus believe in them.  The Jains also  do\t not
\nrecognise  the\tdivine\tauthority of the Vedas\tand  do\t not
\npractise  sradhs  or  ceremonies of the dead,  nor  do\tthey
\nrecognise  the spiritual authority of the Brahmins  (Maine’s
\nHindu  Law,  11th  Edition, p. 82).   It  has  been  further
\npointed\t out that there are also organizational\t differences
\nin the matter of religious trusts between Hindus, Sikhs\t and
\nJains.\t There are not many Sikh religious trusts in  Bihar,
\nand  their  organization is  essentially  different.   Jains
\nconsist\t of two main branches-Swetambar Jains  and  Digambar
\nJains-and  each branch has a separate central  organisation.
\nSection\t 8  of\tthe Act recognises  these  differences;\t for
\nexample,  there is an assembly’ of Swetambar Jains known  as
\nShree Sangh and under s. 8(2)(c) of, the Act the Shree Sangh
\nis  entitled  to  elect\t five per-. sons  to  the  Board  of
\nSwetambar  Jain Religious Trust.  Similarly, Digambar  Jains
\nalso have an assembly known as the Digambar Samaj and  under
\ns.  8(3)(c)  of the Act this assembly is entitled  to  elect
\nfive persons to the Board for Digambar Jain Religious Trust.
\nIn  view of these differences it cannot be said that in\t the
\nmatter\tof  religious trusts in the State of  Bihar,  Sikhs,
\nHindus and Jains are situated alike or that the needs of the
\nJains  and  Hindus  are\t the  same  in\tthe  matter  of\t the
\nadministration\t of  their  respective\t religious   trusts;
\ntherefore, according to the well established principles laid
\ndown   by   this   court   with\t  regard   to\t legislative
\nclassification,\t it  was open to the  Bihar  Legislature  to
\nexclude\t Sikhs who might have been in no need of  protection
\nand to distinguish between Hindus and Jains.  Therefore, the
\ncontention  urged  on  behalf of  the  appellants  that\t the
\nseveral\t provisions of the Act contravene Art. 14 is  devoid
\nof any merit.\n<\/p>\n
The  next  contention urged on behalf of the  appellants  is
\nthat  the provisions in Chapter V, and in particular ss.  28
\nand  32,  violate the fundamental right\t guaranteed  to\t the
\nappellants under Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution,  namely,
\ntheir  right  to  acquire, hold and  dispose  of  the  trust
\nproperties.   This argument before us has proceeded  on\t the
\nfooting\t that the properties which the appellants  bold\t are
\ntrust properties within
\n573<\/span>
\nthe  meaning  of the Act ; but we must state here  that\t the
\nappellants  have also alleged that the properties are  their
\nprivate\t properties,  to which aspect of the case  we  shall
\nadvert later.  Chapter V of the Act, and in particular s. 28
\nthereof,  lays down the powers and duties of the Board.\t  To
\nsome  of  these\t powers\t and duties  we\t have  already\tmade
\na  reference earlier.  Section 32 gives power to the  Board,
\nof  its\t own  motion or on application made to\tit  in\tthat
\nbehalf\tby two or more persons interested in any  trust,  to
\nsettle\tschemes for proper administration of  the  religious
\ntrust.\t There are other sections in the chapter which\tgive
\nthe Board power to enter into contracts and to borrow money,
\netc., for carrying out any of the purposes of the Act or  to
\ngive  effect to the provisions thereof.\t Under s.  58  every
\ntrustee must carry out all directions which may from time to
\ntime  be  issued  to  him by the  Board\t under\tany  of\t the
\nprovisions of the Act.\tThe powers given under s. 28 include
\nthe  power  to\tprepare\t and settle  the  budget,  to  cause
\ninspection to be made of the property and the office of\t any
\nreligious trust, to call for information, reports,  returns,
\netc., to give directions for the proper administration of  a
\nreligious  trust in accordance with the law  governing\tsuch
\ntrusts\tand the wishes of the founder, to remove  a  trustee
\nfrom his office in certain circumstances, and to control and
\nadminister  the trust fund, etc.  The argument before us  is
\nthat  the  position  of a maharani or  shebait\tof  a  Hindu
\nreligious  trust is a combination of office and\t proprietary
\nright  and  under the provisions of the Act  the  mahant  or
\nshebait\t practically  loses his right of management  and  is
\nreduced\t to  the position of a mere servant  of\t the  Board;
\nthis,  it  is  contended, is violative\tof  the\t appellants’
\nfundamental right under Art. 19(1)(f).\n<\/p>\n
In Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick<\/a> (1) Mukherjea, J.,
\ndelivering  the\t majority judgment of this Court,  has\tsaid
\nthat  the  exact  legal position of a, shebait\tmay  not  be
\ncapable\t of  precise definition, but  its  implications\t are
\nfairly\twell  established.   It\t is  now  settled  that\t the
\nrelation of a shebait in regard to
\n(1)  [1951] S.C.R. 1125, 1133.\n<\/p>\n
574<\/span><\/p>\n
debutter property is not that of a trustee to trust property
\nunder the English law.\n<\/p>\n
Mukherjea, J., said :\n<\/p>\n
”  In  English law the legal estate in\tthe  trust  property
\nvests in the trustee who holds it for the benefit of  cestui
\nque trust.  In a Hindu religious endowment on the other hand
\nthe   entire   ownership  of  the  dedicated   property\t  is
\ntransferred  to\t the deity or the institution  itself  as  a
\njuristic person and the shebait or mahant is a mere manager.
\nBut  though a shebait is a manager and not a trustee in\t the
\ntechnical  sense,  it would not be correct to  describe\t the
\nshebaitship  as\t a mere office.\t The shebait  has  not\tonly
\nduties to discharge in connection with the endowment, but he
\nhas    a    beneficial\t  interest    in    the\t    debutter
\nproperty…………  In  almost  all  such  endowments\t the
\nshebait has a share in the usufruct of the debutter property
\nwhich depends upon the terms of the grant or upon custom  or
\nusage.\tEven where no emoluments are attached to the  office
\nof the shebait, he enjoys some sort of right or interest  in
\nthe  endowed  property\twhich partially\t at  least  has\t the
\ncharacter  of a proprietary right.  Thus, in the  conception
\nof  shebaiti  both the elements of office and  property,  of
\nduties\tand  personal  interest, are mixed  up\tand  blended
\ntogether  ; and one of the elements cannot be detached\tfrom
\nthe  other.   It  is  the  presence  of\t this  personal\t  or
\nbeneficial  interest in the endowed property  which  invests
\nshebaitship  with  the character of proprietary\t rights\t and
\nattaches to it the legal incidents of property.”
\nIt  is to be remembered that even before the passing of\t the
\nAct  here  impugned,  there  was  statutory  machinery\t for
\nenforcing the obligations and duties imposed Upon mahant  or
\nshebait.  Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided
\nthat  in  the case of an alleged breach of  any\t express  or
\nconstructive   trust  created  for  public  purposes  of   a
\ncharitable or religious nature or where the direction of the
\ncourt  was  deemed necessary for the administration  of\t any
\nsuch  trust,  the Advocate-General, or two or  more  persons
\nhaving\tan  interest in the trust and  having  obtained\t the
\nconsent in writing of the Advocate-General, might institute
\n575<\/span>
\na  suit\t to obtain a decree-(a) to remove any  trustee,\t (b)
\nappointing  a  new trustee, (c) vesting any  property  in  a
\ntrustee, (d) directing accounts and enquiries, (e) declaring
\nwhat  proportion  of the trust property or of  the  interest
\ntherein\t shall be allocated to any particular object of\t the
\ntrust,\t(f) authorising the whole or any part of  the  trust
\nproperty  to  be  let, sold,  mortgaged\t or  exchanged,\t (g)
\nsettling  scheme and\/or (h) granting such further  or  other
\nrelief as the nature of the case might require.\t The section
\ntherefore provided an important machinery for enforcing\t the
\nobligations   and  duties  imposed  on\ttrustees   and\t the
\njurisdiction  given to the court was of a very wide  extent.
\nNow, the right guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(f) is subject  to
\ncl. (5), thereof, which says inter alia that nothing in sub-
\nclause\t(f)  shall  prevent the State from  making  any\t law
\nimposing  reasonable  restrictions on the  exercise  of\t the
\nright  conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests  of
\nthe  general public.  We are of the view, in agreement\twith
\nthat of the High Court, that the restrictions imposed by the
\nAct on the power of the trustees are really intended, as the
\npreamble of the Act states, for the better administration of
\nHindu  religious  trusts in the State of Bihar and  for\t the
\nprotection  and preservation of properties  appertaining  to
\nsuch  trusts.\tIt is indeed true that the  Act\t provides  a
\nbetter\tand  more speedy remedy for the enforcement  of\t the
\nobligations  and  duties imposed on the\t trustees  than\t the
\nlengthy and cumbrous procedure of a suit under s. 92 of\t the
\nCivil  Procedure  Code.\t The Board is  vested  with  summary
\npowers\tin  various  matters,  but  the\t control  is  to  be
\nexercised  for the better and more efficient  administration
\nof the trust and for the protection and preservation of\t the
\ntrust properties.  It is germane to refer in this connection
\nto sub-s. (1) of s. 28 which states that the Board shall  do
\nall  things  reasonable\t and necessary to  ensure  that\t the
\nreligious  trusts are properly supervised  and\tadministered
\nand that the income thereof is duly appropriated and applied
\nto  the\t objects of such trusts and in accordance  with\t the
\npurposes for which such trusts were founded.  Section
\n576<\/span>
\n60  (2) no doubt empowers the Board to alter or\t modify\t the
\nbudget\tof  any religious trust in such manner and  to\tsuch
\nextent\tas it thinks fit ; but sub-s. (6) of s. 60 makes  it
\nclear that nothing contained in the section shall be  deemed
\nto  autborise the Board to alter or modify any budget  in  a
\nmanner\tor to an extent inconsistent with the wishes of\t the
\nfounder,  so far-as such wishes can be ascertained, or\twith
\nthe  provisions\t of the Act.  Section 28 (2) (h)  gives\t the
\nBoard  power to remove a trustee from his office in  certain
\ncontingencies; but sub-s. (3) of s. 28 says that an order of
\nremoval\t passed\t by the Board under el. (h)  of\t sub-s.\t (2)
\nshall  be  communicated to the trustee\tconcerned  and\tsuch
\ntrustee\t may  within 90 days of the  communication  of\tsuch
\norder apply to the District Judge for varying, modifying  or
\nsetting\t aside the order.  Section 28 (2) (j)  empowers\t the
\nBoard  to  sanction  the conversion of\tany  property  of  a
\nreligious  trust  into\tanother property  if  the  Board  is
\nsatisfied that such conversion is beneficial for the  trust;
\nthere  is,  however,  an  important  proviso  that  no\tsuch
\nconversion shall be sanctioned unless the Board so  resolves
\nby  a majority which includes at least three-fourths of\t its
\nmembers\t and  the  resolution is approved  by  the  District
\nJudge.\t Even with regard to the settling of a scheme  under
\ns.  32 there is a safeguard under sub-s. (3) thereof,  which
\nsays that the trustee or any person interested in the  trust
\nmay  within  three months of the publication of\t the  scheme
\nmake  an  application  to the District\tJudge  for  varying,
\nmodifying or setting aside the scheme.\n<\/p>\n
These and similar other safeguards clearly indicate Act, and
\nwe are of the view that having regard to the position  of  a
\ntrustee as respects the trust property which he\t  holds\t and
\nthe  object or purpose of the Act,the  restrictions  imposed
\nare  really for the purpose of carrying out the\t objects  of
\nthe  trust  and for better  administration,  protection\t and
\npreservation of the trust properties ; they are,  therefore,
\nreasonable  restrictions  in the interests  of\tthe  general
\npublic\twithin\tthe  meaning of el. (5) of Art.\t 19  of\t the
\nConstitution.  In
\n577<\/span>
\nthis respect, the impugned provisions of the Act differ from
\nthose\tprovisions  of\tthe  Madras  Hindu   Religious\t and
\nCharitable  Endowments\tAct,  1951,  and  the  Orissa  Hindu
\nReligious  Endowments Act, 1939, as amended by the  Amending
\nAct 11 of 1952, which came under consideration of this Court
\nin  The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras  v.
\nSri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Shri Shirur Mutt<\/a> (1)\t and
\nMahant\tShri  Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. The State  of  Orissa<\/a>
\n(2),  and  were held to be invalid on the ground  that\tthey
\nwere  not reasonable restrictions within the meaning of\t el.
\n(5) of Art. 19 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The  third contention of the appellants rests upon Arts.  25
\nand 26 of the Constitution.  The appellants have invoked  in
\naid  Art.  25  (1) which says inter alia,  that\t subject  to
\npublic\torder,\tmorality and health, all  persons  have\t the
\nright  freely to profess, practice and\tpropagate  religion.
\nArticle\t 26 is also relied on for the contention that  every
\nreligious  denomination or any section thereof has a,  right\n<\/p>\n
(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and
\ncharitable  purposes  and (b) to manage its own\t affairs  in
\nmatters of religion.  It is difficult to see how any of\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe Act can be said to\tinterfere  with\t the
\nright guaranteed by Art. 25, viz., freedom of conscience and
\nthe   right  freely  to\t profess,  practice  and   propagate
\nreligion.   Learned counsel for the appellants has not\tbeen
\nable to point out to us any particular provision of the\t Act
\nwhich  interferes  with\t such a right.\t On  behalf  of\t the
\nappellants it has been submitted that the power to alter  or
\nmodify\tthe  bud  get relating to a religious trust  or\t the
\npower  to give directions to a trustee may be  exercised  by
\nthe Board in such a way as to affect the due observance,  of
\nreligious practices in a math or temple so as to  constitute
\nan  encroachment on the right guaranteed under Art. 25,\t and
\nlearned\t counsel for the appellants had placed\treliance  on
\nThe Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v.\t Sri
\nLakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt<\/a> (1), for\t his
\nsubmission that
\n(I)  [1954] S.C.R. 1005.\n<\/p>\n
73<\/span><\/p>\n
(2) [1954] S.C.R. 1046.\n<\/p>\n
578<\/span><\/p>\n
freedom\t of religion in our Constitution is not confined  to
\nreligious  beliefs only, but extends to religious  practices
\nas  well subject to the restrictions which the\tConstitution
\nitself has laid down.  The answer to this submission is two-
\nfold  : we have pointed out earlier that the power to  alter
\nthe budget is subject to cl. (6) of s. 60 of the Act and the
\nBoard  is nit authorised to alter or modify the budget in  a
\nmanner\tor to an extent inconsistent with the wishes of\t the
\nfounder\t or  with the provisions of the Act.  The  power  to
\ngive directions to the trustee is also subject to a  similar
\nrestriction,  namely, the directions must be for the  proper
\nadministration\tof the religious trust in’  accordance\twith
\nthe  law governing such trust and the wishes of the  founder
\nin  so\tfar as such wishes can be ascertained  and  are\t not
\nrepugnant  to  such law.  The keynote of  all  the  relevant
\nprovisions  of the Act is the due observance of the  objects
\nof  the\t religious trust and not its  breach  or  violation.
\nSecondly,  as  was  observed  in  The  Commissioner,   Hindu
\nReligious  Endowments,\tMadras v. Shri\tLakshmindra  Thirtha
\nSwamiar\t  of  Shri  Shirur  Mutt<\/a>(1),  at  p.  1030,   ”\t  an
\napprehension  that the powers conferred…… may be  abused
\nin  individual cases does not make the provision itself\t bad
\nor invalid in law “.\n<\/p>\n
With  regard to Art. 26, cls. (a) and (b), the\tposition  is
\nthe same.  There is no provision of the Act which interferes
\nwith the right of any religious denomination or any  section
\nthereof to establish and maintain institutions for religious
\nand  charitable purposes; nor do the provisions of  the\t Act
\ninterfere  with the right of any religious  denomination  or
\nany section thereof to manage its own affairs in matters  of
\nreligion.  Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn\t our
\nattention  to  Sri  Venkataramana Devaru  v.  The  State  of
\nMysore,\t (2),  where following the earlier decision  in\t The
\nCommisssioner,\tHindu  Religious Endowments, Madras  v.\t Sri
\nLakshmindra  Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt<\/a> (1), it\t was
\nobserved  that matters of religion included  even  practices
\nwhich  are  ,regarded;\tby’-the community  as  part  of\t its
\nreligion.  Our attention has also been drawn
\n(I) [1954] S.C.R. I005.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1958] S.C.R. 895.\n<\/p>\n
579<\/span><\/p>\n
to Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The State of Bombay<\/a> in  which
\nit  has been held that a religious sect or denomination\t has
\nthe  right to manage its own affairs in matters of  religion
\nand  this includes the right to spend the trust property  or
\nits  income  for  religion and for  religious  purposes\t and
\nobjects indicated by the founder of the trust or established
\nby  usage  obtaining in a particular  institution.   It\t was
\nfurther\t held therein that to divert the trust\tproperty  or
\nfunds  for  purposes which the charity commissioner  or\t the
\ncourt considered expedient or proper, although the  original
\nobjects\t of the founder could still be carried out,  was  an
\nunwarranted encroachment on the freedom of religious  insti-
\ntutions\t in  regard  to the management\tof  their  religious
\naffairs.   We  do  not think that  the\taforesaid  decisions
\nafford\tany  assistance to the\tappellants.   Granting\tthat
\nmatters\t of  religion’ include practices which\ta  religious
\ndenomination  regards as part of its religion, none  of\t the
\nprovisions of the Act interfere with such practices; nor  do
\nthe provisions of the Act seek to divert the trust  property
\nor  funds  for purposes other than those  indicated  by\t the
\nfounder of the trust or those established by usage obtaining
\nin   a\tparticular  institution.   On  the   contrary,\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthe Act seek to implement the  purposes\t for
\nwhich  the trust was created and prevent  mismanagement\t and
\nwaste  by  the\ttrustee.  In other words,  the\tAct  by\t its
\nseveral\t provisions seeks to fulfill rather than defeat\t the
\ntrust.\t In  our  opinion,  there is  no  substance  in\t the
\nargument that the provisions of the Act contravene Arts.  25
\nand 26 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Lastly, the appellants have challenged the validity of s. 70
\nof the Act,the relevant portion of which states:
\nexpenses incurred or to be incurred in the administration of
\nthis  Act,  the trustee of every religious trust  shall,  in
\neach  financial\t year,\tpay  to\t the  Board  such  fee,\t not
\nexceeding  five\t per centum of its net income  in  the\tlast
\npreceding  financial  year, as the Board may, from  time  to
\ntime,  with the previous sanction of the  State\t Government,
\ndetermine.”\n<\/p>\n
(I)  [1954] S.C.R. 1055.\n<\/p>\n
580<\/span><\/p>\n
The argument is that s. 70 imposes an unauthorised tax.\t The
\npoint is, we think, concluded by our decision in Mahant\t Sri
\nJagannath  Ramanuj Das v. The State of Orissa<\/a> (1) where\t the
\ndistinction between a tax and a fee for legislative purposes
\nunder our Constitution was pointed out and with regard to an
\nidentical  imposition  under  s.  49  of  the  Orissa  Hindu
\nReligious  Endowments  Act,  1939,  it\twas  held  that\t the
\ncontribution  levied  was  a  fee and not  a  tax.   It\t was
\nobserved there at p. 1054:\n<\/p>\n
” The collections made are not merged in the general  public
\nrevenue and are not appropriated in the manner laid down for
\nappropriation  of expenses for other public purposes.\tThey
\ngo  to constitute the fund which is contemplated by  section
\n50  of\tthe  Act…… We are further  of  opinion  that  an
\nimposition like this cannot be said to be hit by article  27
\nof the Constitution.  What is forbidden by article 27 is the
\nspecific appropriation of the proceeds of any tax in payment
\nof  expenses  for  the\tpromotion  or  maintenance  of\t any
\nparticular  religion or religious denomination.\t The  object
\nof the contribution under section 49 is not the fostering or
\npreservation  of the Hindu religion or of  any\tdenomination
\nwithin\tit; the purpose is to see that religious trusts\t and
\ninstitutions wherever they exist are properly  administered.
\nIt   is\t  the  secular\tadministration\tof   the   religious
\ninstitutions  that the legislature seeks to control and\t the
\nobject,\t as  enunciated in the Act, is to  ensure  that\t the
\nendowments  attached  to  the  religious  institutions\t are
\nproperly administered and their income is duly\tappropriated
\nfor purposes for which they were founded or exist.  As there
\nis  no\tquestion  of favouring any  particular\treligion  or
\nreligious  denomination,  article  27  could  not   possibly
\napply.”\t These\tobservations apply with equal force  to\t the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
It  has\t also  been argued that s. 55 (2) of  the  Act\tcon-
\ntravenes  Art.\t133 of the Constitution and  is\t accordingly
\ninvalid.  Section 55 is in these terms:\n<\/p>\n
55  (1).  “Unless otherwise provided in this Act, an  appeal
\nshall  lie to the High Court against every order  passed  by
\nthe District Judge under this Act.\n<\/p>\n
(I)  [1954] S.C.R. 1046.\n<\/p>\n
581<\/span><\/p>\n
(2)  No\t appeal\t shall lie from any order passed  in  appeal
\nunder this section.”\n<\/p>\n
We  do not think that s. 55 (2) of the Act overrides  or  is
\nintended  to override Art. 133 or any other Article  of\t the
\nConstitution relating to appeals to the Supreme Court.\tSuch
\nappeals must undoubtedly lie to the Supreme Court,  provided
\nthe  necessary requirements for such appeals are  fulfilled.
\nIt  is,\t we think, obvious that the Act\t cannot\t affect\t the
\njurisdiction of the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
We  now come to that part of the case of the  appellants  in
\nwhich  they  claim  the\t properties  to\t be  their   private
\nproperties or, in the alternative, the trusts to be  private
\ntrusts.\t The High Court has pointed out that in M. J. C. 418
\nof  1952  out of which has arisen Civil Appeal\tNo.  225  of
\n1955, though there was an assertion that the properties were
\nnot  trust  properties,\t there was  a  counter-affidavit  on
\nbehalf of the State of Bihar that the asthal in question was
\na  public  asthal and the  properties  appertaining  thereto
\ntrust properties within the meaning of the Act.\t In M. J. C.
\n124 of 1953 out of which has arisen Civil Appeal No. 226  of
\n1955 there was a similar claim that the mahant of the asthal
\nwas the absolute owner of the properties belonging to the
\nmath.  In Suit No. 34 of 1952\/106 of 1953 out of  which\t has
\narisen
\nCivil  Appeal  No.  228\t of 1955  there\t was  a\t prayer\t for
\nadjournment  in\t order\tto enable the  plaintiffs  (now\t ap-
\npellants before us) to file a petition to amend the  plaint,
\nand  the purpose of the amendment sought to be made  was  to
\nclaim  that the institutions in question were of  a  private
\ncharater  and  the  Act had no application  to\tthem.\tThis
\nprayer\twas disallowed by the-High Court on the ground\tthat
\nthe  amendment\tsought\tto be made  would  alter  the  whole
\ncharacter of the suit.\tIn M. J C. 188 of 1953 out of  which
\nhas  arisen Civil Appeal No. 229 of 1955 the claim was\tthat
\nthere was no trust,. express or implied.  In M. J. C. 235 of
\n1953  out of which has arisen Civil Appeal No. 248  of\t1955
\nthere  was  a counter-affidavit on behalf of  the  State  of
\nBihar  that the temple in question was a public\t temple\t and
\nthe  Act applied to it.\t In all these cases the\t High  Court
\nhas
\n582<\/span>
\ntaken  the view, rightly in our opinion, that the  questions
\nwhether\t the  trusts  are public or private  trusts  or\t the
\nproperties  are\t private or trust properties  are  questions
\nwhich\tinvolve\t investigation\tof  complicated\t facts\t and
\nrecording  of evidence and such investigation could  not  be
\ndone  on writ proceedings.  In the one suit which was  tried
\nin the High Court the question did not arise as no amendment
\nwas  allowed.\tTherefore,  in\tthese  cases  there  are  no
\nmaterials  on  which the question as to the  nature  of\t the
\ntrust  can be determined, though in Civil Appeal No. 343  of
\n1955 (1) in which also judgment is being delivered today, we
\nhave held that having regard to the preamble to the Act, the
\nprovisions in s. 3 and the provisions of sub-s. (5) of s.  4
\nthe  definition clause of ‘religious trust’ in the Act\tmust
\nmean  public trusts express or constructive,  recognised  by
\nHindu  law  to\tbe religious,  pious  or  charitable.\tThat
\nfinding,  however, is of no assistance to the appellants  in
\nthe  present cases.  The fate of these cases must depend  on
\nthe sole question whether the Act is constitutionally  valid
\nor  not.   We  have held that the  Act\tis  constitutionally
\nvalid.\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t result\t we hold that the appeals  are\twithout\t any
\nmerit.\tThey are accordingly dismissed with costs.
\nAppeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  mlahant  ]?am Saroop Dasji v. S.  P. Sahi,<\/a> see  p.\t 583
\nPost-\n<\/p>\n
583<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In … on 15 April, 1959 Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 942, 1959 SCR Supl. (2) 503 Author: S Das Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Das, S.K., Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: MAHANT MOTI DAS Vs. RESPONDENT: S. P. SAHI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-199057","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-02T22:57:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In … on 15 April, 1959\",\"datePublished\":\"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-02T22:57:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959\"},\"wordCount\":6449,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959\",\"name\":\"Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-02T22:57:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In … on 15 April, 1959\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-02T22:57:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In … on 15 April, 1959","datePublished":"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-02T22:57:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959"},"wordCount":6449,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959","name":"Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In ... on 15 April, 1959 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1959-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-02T22:57:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-moti-das-vs-s-p-sahi-the-special-officer-in-on-15-april-1959#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahant Moti Das vs S. P. Sahi, The Special Officer In … on 15 April, 1959"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199057","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=199057"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199057\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199057"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}