| Civil Appeal No. 1231 of 1968. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 20th December 1962 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Appeal No No. 151 of 1960. The question of oral leave is whether Shri Vithal Sukhamai Sansthan at Amalner, (East Khandesh) was a private Devasthan or a public religious trust. The word 'Buwa ' means saint. There was a saint endowed with spiritual powers by the name of Sakharam Maharaj in the year 1817 and he built a temple on the premises of the said saint. The Mr. Bal submits that there is absolutely no evidence in this case about dedication to the public or public user of the temple as a matter of right. Apart from that the temple was shown to have a Manager and not an owner as such. Since the grievance of the appellant is directed against the High Court 's absolute failure to consider all the documentary evidence, we may deal with that aspect first. The earliest document produced in this place is a 'Sanad ' (exhibit 42) of November 1, 1863. This Sanad was granted by the then British Government during the reign of Queen Victoria in favour of "Devasthan Shri Vith The next document is Vyavasthapatra (exhibit 41) of April 25, 1897. Although the High Court has not dealt with this document, there is a reference in its judgment to the contents of the same as being similar to exhibit 35. The donor, an old agriculturist of a different Taluka viz. Erandole, writes: "I give the gift deed in writing as follows: With the object of giving possible help through me to the above sansthan, I have given in gift my ancestral immovable property. Now all our movable and immovable estate is partitioned orally. " The said gift deed was in favour of Arch In Tilkayat Shri Govindlji Maharaj vs The State of Rajasthan and others this Court had to consider about a Hindu temple being private or public and observed as follows: "Where evidence in regard to the foundation of the temple is not clearly available sometimes, judicial decisions rely on certain other facts which are treated as relevant. The cardinal point to be decided is whether it was the intention of the founder that specified individuals are to have the right of worship at the shrine, or the general public or any specified portion thereof. Are the members of the public entitled to an entry in the temple ? Are they entitled to take part in offering service and taking Darshan in the The evidence of the constituted attorney Ramkrishna Deshpande that they "cannot prevent people from going to the temple as the temple is meant for the Darshan in public and not for the puja performed by the devotees under the auspices of the Sansthan" adds to the effect of the documentary evidence produced by the appellant in this case in favour of the same conclusion. It has to be remembered that the founder Sakharam Maharaj was a celibate and the successive disciples who succeeded as Adhikaris of the Gadi were also celibates. From exhibit 35, the first Varaspatra of February 28, 18 R.B. (4) More than a century ago the temple in its own name was recipient of land by Royal grant and the same has been managed |