This article is written by Meenakshi Kalra. It aims to provide a detailed analysis of the judgement of Radhakanta Deb & Anr vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (1981). The article highlights and elaborates on the differences between a private endowment and a public endowment. This judgement plays a vital role, as it clarifies the scope of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1939, and sheds light on what falls under the definition of the public endowment. This analysis deals with the arguments made by the parties, observations, and reasoning of the court, including the legal precedents and provisions referred.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Religious endowments have played a crucial role in the Hindu society for a very long time. They have served as a means for preserving religious, cultural, and social heritage. In ancient times, temples and other religious institutions not only served as places of worship but were also important places for the promotion of education and art. Temples have always been regarded as pious and sacred spaces, where deities reside and are worshipped by society. The proper management and regulation of these temples is vital, as this has an impact on the religious practices and beliefs of millions of people.
The laws relating to religious endowments have gone through several changes over time. During the period of British colonial administration, laws and regulations were introduced to supervise the endowments and oversee their management. After independence, states enacted their own state laws for the regulation of religious endowments, one such example being, the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the OHRE Act).
The OHRE Act of 1939 was repealed and then reenacted as Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 which saw several amendments and additions. The aim of the OHRE Act was to check and manage the Hindu religious endowments that existed in Orissa at that time.
The judgement in the present case of Radhakanta Deb & Anr vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (1981), addressed the nature of the endowment where the temple for deity Radhakanta Deb was built by the Pani family and determined whether it was a public endowment or private endowment under the OHRE Act.
Determining the difference between public and private endowment is important, as it helps in clarifying the degree of state intervention that is allowed under the OHRE Act as all Hindu public religious institutions and endowments in Orissa are covered under its scope. Radhakanta Deb & Anr vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (1981) highlighted the significance of maintaining such distinction and ensured that the autonomy of private endowments was retained by the founders of such endowment.
Background of the case
This case revolves around the scope and applicability of the OHRE Act and was brought before the Supreme Court, by the Pani family for reconsideration of the nature of their endowment and temple, as they were dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court of Orissa.
The OHRE Act was legislation which was enacted by the British colonial government to regulate and manage Hindu temples and endowments in the state of Orissa. It was enacted at a time when there was increasing concern about the mismanagement of religious endowments that existed in India. Many temples and religious institutions had gathered significant wealth and property over the centuries, but there were recurrent assertions about the misuse and corruption of this wealth and property. The Act was introduced to oversee the financial management, property administration, and the use of benefits, such as money, derived from these endowments. It aimed to address these issues by establishing a legal framework for the supervision and regulation of these endowments and by ensuring that these establishments were used for their intended religious and charitable purposes. This Act also attempted to lay down the procedure for the appointment of trustees or managers of religious institutions and also listed their duties and responsibilities with respect to such institutions.
The ORHE Act, 1939 had several loopholes and ambiguities that made it difficult to effectively control and supervise Hindu religious institutions and their endowments. Hence, this Act was repealed and reenacted in 1951.
The OHRE Act, 1951 aimed to provide clearer guidelines and more detailed provisions for the management and administration of these institutions. It established stricter provisions to ensure transparency and prevent mismanagement or misuse of temple assets. Further, the socio-political landscape and the character of religious endowments have evolved since 1939. The ORHE Act, 1951 sought to reflect these changes which took place after independence and provide a legal framework that was better suited to the present context.
The case of Radhakanta Deb & Anr vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (1981) continues to have an impact on how religious endowments are classified and managed, influencing the balance between religious autonomy and state regulation in the country.
Details of the case
Title of the case
Radhakanta Deb & Anr vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa
Parties
Petitioner
Radhakanta Deb & Anr.
Respondents
Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa
Type of case
Civil appeal
Court
Supreme Court of India
Bench
Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali, Justice A. Varadarajan, Justice Amarendra Nath Sen
Author of the judgement
Hon’ble Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali
Provisions and statutes involved
- Section 62(2) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1939
- Article 133 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Date of judgement
13th February, 1981
Equivalent citation
1981 AIR 798
Facts of Radhakanta Deb & Anr vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (1981)
- A suit was filed by the appellants, under Section 62(2) of the OHRE Act, to quash an order dated 4th August 1950 which was passed by the respondent, the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa.
- The above order stated that the appellant’s temple for their deity, Radhakanta Deb, was designated as a public temple and a trust. The endowment was also said to be of a public nature. Hence, the temple fell within the ambit of the OHRE Act and would be subject to its provisions.
- The Subordinate Court was of the view that the deity in the temple was a Pani family deity and the endowment was private in nature. Hence, the same could not be said to be covered within the ambit of the OHRE Act. The judge set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa for the management of the endowment.
- The respondent then approached the High Court of Orissa regarding the decision of the Subordinate Court. The High Court reversed the judgement of the Subordinate Court and it was held by the Division Bench, that the temple and deity fell within the scope of the OHRE Act. This meant that the respondent was empowered to pass any orders regarding the management of the said endowment.
- The present appeal in the Supreme Court arose out of the judgement and decree delivered by the Orissa High Court on 31st July, 1969 with respect to the appeal from the original decree no. 78/58. The appeal was brought by way of a certificate that was granted to the appellants under Article 133 of the Constitution of India, against the judgement and decree delivered by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court.
Issues raised
- Whether the temple made by the appellants would fall under the scope of the OHRE Act, as a public endowment or not?
Laws/concepts involved in this case
Private and public endowment
A public endowment is set up for the benefit of the general public. Whereas, a private endowment is set up for a specific group of people or an individual. Further, if the management and control of the endowment is retained by members of a family or specific individuals, then it is a private endowment, but if the public has a say in the same, then it would be regarded as a public endowment.
If a temple is built in such an endowment, it must be ascertained whether the deity placed in such a temple is a family deity or otherwise. If the public is given a right to worship the deity and the deity is not merely a family deity, then it could be regarded as a public endowment. However, if the deity is merely a family deity, then it could be indicative of a private endowment.
Article 133 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Under this Article, a High Court’s judgement, decree, or order can be appealed to the Supreme Court of India, if in a civil case, the High Court states under Article 134A (certificate for the appeal to the Supreme Court), that the case involves an important question of law that needs to be adjudicated and if the High Court is of the opinion that the question of law needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
Notwithstanding anything in Article 132 (appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in certain cases), if the conditions stated above are met by the aggrieved party, then they can appeal to the Supreme Court by stating that the High Court wrongly interpreted an important question of law related to the Constitution.
Further, an appeal cannot be made to the Supreme Court, if the judgement, order, or decree was passed by a single judge bench of the High Court unless the Parliament makes a provision stating otherwise
Arguments of the parties before the High Court of Orissa
Appellants
According to the appellants (respondents in the matter before the High Court), the endowment was a private one, as the deity Radhakantha Deb, was a family deity of the Pani family. The petitioners had constructed a temple on their property for practising seba-puja of the deity, but later when they felt that they were unable to carry on with the practice of seba-puja, they sold the endowed property for 1000 rupees and termed it as samarpan-patra.
The appellants argued that there had never been any effort from their side to vest any right or interest to the public for worshipping of the deity or for their endowments and hence, had maintained the private nature of the endowment. The documents, Ex. A (document executed on 18th February 1895 which created the present endowment) and Ex.1 (settlement deed executed on 7th November 1932) clearly indicate that the endowments are of a private nature and were created to honour the family deity and that the clauses contained in the documents, gave no right or interest to the public.
They highlighted that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses 1 to 5, collected by the court, showed that Radhakanta Deb was the ishta-devata (family deity) of the Pani family, which was private to the family and its members, and the public had no right to worship or manage the temple and endowment.
The appellants further claimed that the features of the temple, as pointed out by the respondent, do not imply a public nature, and maintained that the endowment, along with the temple and deity, were of a private nature.
Further, merely conferring power on people outside the family, does not mean that a right or interest has been created in favour of the public. To support this argument, the petitioners highlighted the treatise Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust by B.K Mukharjee, in which it was stated that if the Shebait who is the guardian of a deity’s property, is the one who has indulged in some wrongdoing or has improperly sold the property and cannot or will not take legal action, then any other person interested in the family temple property, can sue. The deity itself is considered a legal person and can also file a lawsuit through a representative.
The appellants stated that the recital submitted by them, in no way suggested that the nature of the endowment was public and it cannot be said that the right to ownership or right to worship over the same, was given under Ex. A or Ex.1. The endowment was therefore only created for the benefit of the family.
Respondent
The respondent (appellant in the matter before the High Court) contended that the endowment was of a public nature and the deity was not private to the Pani family, implying that the decision of the Subordinate Court was incorrect. There were several portions in the two documents, Ex. A and Ex. 1, which clarified that the nature of the right in the endowment, was public.
The defence witness 1, who was a descendant of the Pani family, had stated that the public had the right to worship in the temple, thereby making it a public institution and not a private one. The respondent further contended that the prosecution witnesses were never required to seek any permission from anyone before entering the temple and worshipping the deity. Further, prosecution witness 1 had never visited the temple and had no first hand knowledge of how the matters of the deity were being managed. Hence, his testimony of Radhakanta Deb being set up as a private deity of the Pani family was not reliable.
The respondent’s claim regarding the endowment being public was also supported by several features of the temple, such as the height and size of the temple, the observance of festivals, the practice of bhogs and nities, etc. All these features can be seen in temples of public nature. The appellant’s temple also possessed such features that were consistent with that of a public temple and not a private one.
According to the respondent, if any person of the public had the power to sue the Shebait or Marfatdar, as stated by the appellants, then it cannot be said that the nature of the endowment was private. If it was private, the members of the public, apart from the family members, would not be given any such power. By doing so, the Pani family members had given up their rights and put them in the hands of the public, as can also be inferred from the recital submitted by the appellants.
Judgement by the High Court of Orissa
The judgement was delivered by Hon’ble Justice A. Misra. The Court was of the opinion that the endowment and dedication made by the Pani family was of public nature and not of private nature. The deity installed by the family was also not a family deity; rather the temple along with the deity were both of public nature.
The Hon’ble Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and delivered the judgement in favour of the respondent. The Court felt that the characteristics of the temple and the endowment were identical to those of a public endowment and temple. On perusal of the two documents submitted by the appellants, the Court further stated that the dedication was made in favour of the public and not of the Pani family.
Arguments of the parties before the Supreme Court of India
Appellants
The majority of the arguments made by the appellants in the High Court of Orissa were reiterated in the Supreme Court. They were represented by Mr. P.K. Chatterjee. It was argued that the contention that their endowment was a public one and not a private one, was incorrect. They further stated that the documents and evidence submitted to prove that the endowment had nothing to do with the public, were also misinterpreted by the High Court. It was the appellants’ claim that the temple of the family deity was private in nature and not meant for public worship.
According to them, the OHRE Act did not apply to their private temple, as it only covers public endowments. Since the deity was the family deity of the Pani family, it meant that the endowment was of a private nature. The family had complete autonomy over the management of the temple and the endowment. Thus, it could not be said that the endowment was of a public nature.
Respondent
The respondent contended that the judgement delivered by the High Court was correct and the nature of the endowment and temple was public. The arguments made by the respondent in the High Court were reiterated during the proceedings of the Supreme Court.
To summarise, the respondent contended that the endowment, including the temple, was of a public nature and this could be seen clearly by analysing the contents of Ex. 1 and Ex. A. According to the respondent, the temple’s structure, distance from the family residence and celebration of festivals and other characteristics clearly suggested that the temple was of a public nature. Further, other factors, such as practising of seva puja and the presence of others at the temple, also strengthen the public nature of the temple.
According to the defence witness 1, the public had the right to worship in the temple which suggested that the endowment was of a public nature. Further prosecution witness 1 stated that he never had to seek permission from anyone before entering the temple to worship the deity.
The respondent argued that many features of the temple were consistent with that of a public temple. Members of the public were also given the power to sue the Shebait and Marfatdar, which showed that the public had certain rights and interests in the temple.
All these factors and arguments, when considered together, can be used to determine the fact that the endowment was of a public nature. Hence, it would be covered under the scope of the OHRE Act, since the temple was public, did not bar community participation, provided open access to the temple for worshipping, etc.
Judgement by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India held that the endowment and the temple of the Pani family did not fall within the ambit of the OHRE Act, as the nature of the endowment and the temple were of a private nature.
This judgement was determined by using both the oral and the documentary evidence. The documentary evidence- Ex. A and Ex. 1, played an important role in helping the Supreme Court reach the said decision. The court upheld the decision of the Trial Court, which had originally stated that the nature of the endowment was private and not public and set aside the judgement of the High Court. According to the Supreme Court, the High Court had overlooked some important facts and had underappreciated the evidence produced.
The court stated that trivial factors were not to be considered while determining the nature of an endowment. Rather, it used multiple tests and paid attention to several factors to ascertain the nature of the endowment.
The court reiterated that the temple was installed to worship the family deity of the Pani family and was intended for the benefit of the Pani family and their descendants alone. The court did not find any evidence that suggested that there was involvement of members of the public when it came to the maintenance or collecting funds for the temple. Further, the members of the public did not have any right to worship which was given to them by the Pani family. The Pani family also made consistent efforts to ensure that the management and control of the endowment and the temple remained with the members of the family or members appointed by the family. All these factors considered together, made it crystal clear that the nature of the endowment and the temple was private and not public.
Rationale behind the judgement
While reaching the conclusion that the endowment and the temple of the Pani family were of a private nature, the court examined two historical documents- Ex. A and Ex. 1, which stated that the temple was created for the family deity and also laid down instructions for the management of the endowment and the temple. It stated that the endowment and the temple were meant to remain within the control of the family or their appointed Tatwabadharak and Shebait. The document further stated that both in the present and in the future, all decisions made by the Tatwabadharak were to be made in accordance with this document.
Further, provisions were made under the document, to show that the management and control of the temple were retained by the family. The Tatwabadharak could be removed if any actions contrary to what had been laid down were performed by him. The control over the property would be retained by the family, for present and future generations.
According to the High Court of Orissa, the interpretation of clause 15 of Ex. A suggested that the temple and endowment were of a public nature, as under this clause, any member of the Vaishnav sect or any Hindu resident of the village could exercise certain powers if certain contingencies arose. However, the Supreme Court was of the view that this clause could only be enforced if the Pani family became extinct. Only if no such suitable person was found, would a member of the Vaishnav sect or a reputed Hindu from the village perform the deity’s duties. This provision alone cannot make the nature of the endowment public, as it selected a specific person from a specific community, which indicated that the founders of the endowment strived to maintain the private nature of the endowment, even if the Pani family ceased to exist. If they intended for it to be a public endowment, the clause would be expressed in a different manner, wherein the public, a brotherhood, or the Government, could take over the management. Instead, the provision was structured in a way that the nature of the endowment remained private.
Special provisions were also made against the sale or mortgage of the temple properties, which ensured that the endowment remained private and under family control. The temple and its properties were dedicated to the family deity and were to be managed by family-appointed trustees.
The court stated that the difference between a private and public endowment can be determined by evaluating whether the endowment is under the management and control of specific people or under the public and unknown people. Another factor the court considered to determine the nature of the temple was whether the right to worship was given to the public and if the benefits arising out of the property were meant for the family members or the general public.
The court referred to multiple legal precedents to determine the difference between a private and public endowment. The court finally reached its conclusion by stating that the deity was a family deity and was intended for only people and members connected to the Pani family. This was done so that the private character of the endowment could be protected. Further, no contributions were taken from the public to support the temple or the deity. Instead, private resources and funds were used. Nothing contained in the documentary evidence indicated that the public had the right to worship in the temple. Prosecution witnesses 1 to 6, in their testimony, stated that permission had to be taken before worshipping the deity. Hence, it cannot be said that there was a right to worship given to the public. The court also clarified that the practice of offering bhogs in temples cannot be used as an argument in favour of the temple being of a public nature, as bhogs are also offered in private temples.
Relevant judgements referred to in the case
Deoki Nandan vs. Murlidhar (1956)
In the case of Deoki Nandan vs. Murlidhar (1956), the Supreme Court stated that while determining the nature of the endowment, there are various factors that need to be considered, such as whether the temple is located in a private house or a public building. Moreover, if the idol of the deity is placed on a pedestal, permanently, then it is in line with the characteristics of a public endowment, rather than that of a private endowment. Further, if an archaka has been appointed to perform puja in the temple, it is suggestive of the public nature of the endowment.
Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs. S.P. Sahi (1959)
In the case of Mahant Ram Saroop Dasji vs. S.P. Sahi (1959), the issue before the court was whether the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 applied to both private and public trusts. The court stated that it is important to determine the difference between the two before adjudicating on the same. According to the court, the benefit arising out of public trust is in favour of unknown and unspecified persons, which could suggest that it is meant for the general public at large. Whereas, a private trust means that only specific individuals would be entitled to the benefits arising out of the trust.
Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi (1960)
In the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale vs. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi (1960), the Supreme Court of India stated that the characteristics of the temple, such as the size of the temple, the way the temple was constructed, the right to worship given to the public, funds collected from rulers, etc., were all suggestive of a public nature of the temple and not a private nature.
Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna vs. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das (1971)
In Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna vs. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das (1971), the court, upon analysing various factors related to the character of the temple, such as the festival celebrations, giving shelter and food to sadhus in the temple, right of the public to worship in the temple without any limitations, permanent pedestals installed for the idols of the deity, the temple being separate from the residential property of the Mahant, the Mahants belonging to the Vaishnav Bairagi sect who were lifelong celibates, was of the opinion that the character of the temple was public and not private and hence, it would fall within the ambit of Bihar State Religious Trust Board.
Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Purshottambuwa Owner of Shri Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan vs. Charity Commissioner, State of Bombay (1976)
The court in the case of Dhaneshwarbuwa Guru Purshottambuwa Owner of Shri Vithal Rukhamai Sansthan vs. Charity Commissioner, State of Bombay (1976), reiterated all the factors mentioned in the above cases and emphasised on whether the public possessed the right to worship. If such a right has been given to the public, it would most certainly establish the public nature of the endowment. The mere fact that there was no hindrance in visiting and worshipping in the temple does not mean that the temple was of a public nature. There has to be an existence of the right to worship given to the public before it can be said that the nature of the endowment is public.
Gurpur Guni Venkataraya Narashima Prabhu vs. B.G. Achia (1977)
In the case of Gurpur Guni Venkataraya Narashima Prabhu vs. B.G. Achia (1977), the court stated that just because there was no hindrance or permission required for worshipping in the temple, it does not imply that a right to worship was given to the public. Various other factors must be considered before the nature of the temple can be inferred.
Analysis of Radhakanta Deb & Anr vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (1981)
The case of Radhakanta Deb & Anr vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (1981) established that a comprehensive approach must be taken to determine the nature of an endowment, such as analysing the intention of the founders, management, and control of the property, public involvement in decisions or funding, etc. Trivial factors should not be considered while determining the nature of the endowment. Rather, important evidence and various other factors must be taken into account.
This judgement provided a clear distinction between private and public endowments which will serve as a precedent for future cases. This ruling also clarified that the OHRE Act does not apply to private endowments and upheld the right of the Pani family to manage and control their endowment in the manner of their choice.
By doing so, the court reduced ambiguity and helped in the consistent application of legal principles relating to the nature of endowments, across similar disputes. This is an important case when it comes to safeguarding private endowments from forceful governmental interference, as it allows a private endowment to operate according to the rules and practices established by the founders.
However, the downside of this judgement could be that it relies heavily on historical documents, such as Ex. A and Ex. 1, to determine the nature of the endowment. This approach used by the court fails to appreciate the current practices and changes in society. A dynamic approach would have been more helpful, as it would help prevent any misinterpretation in future cases.
The Radhakanta Deb & Anr vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (1981) case not only raises questions about the tests used to distinguish private and public endowments but also helps in determining the degree of state control over religious institutions. It highlights the fact that public endowments are subject to greater state control and supervision. Whereas, private endowments are typically family-run and intended for the use and benefit of the family members or a specified group of individuals. However, this criteria for distinction is not without its own challenges. Navigating the legal landscape and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements, while preserving the religious and cultural significance of the religious endowments is a tough job. This is because the tension between the autonomy of religious institutions and the need for state oversight to prevent mismanagement and corruption is still a prevalent issue.
Conclusion
The definition of “religious endowments” has undergone several changes with time. The judgement delivered by the Supreme Court in the case of Radhakanta Deb vs. Commissioner Of Hindu Religious Endowments, Orissa (1981) marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of religious endowments under the OHRE Act.
The Supreme Court attempted to clarify the distinction that exists between a private and public endowment. In its decision, the court emphasised the need to consider numerous factors that exist when it comes to determining the nature of an endowment and to use an exhaustive approach, rather than only focusing on limited factors and petty details.
This case continues to be relevant in today’s time, due to the ongoing debates around the regulation of religious endowments in India, considering the recent decisions of the Supreme Court with respect to the management of the Sabarimala Temple and the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. The foundation established by this case is important when it comes to understanding and addressing similar issues in contemporary times.
It serves as a guiding light for future cases, as it ensures that the interests of the founders of a private endowment and their autonomy are safeguarded against State interference. Further, this case also helps to protect the diversity of religious practices that exist in India, as it ensures that all communities are able to retain the management and control of their private endowments and exercise their customs and beliefs.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is an endowment?
In the most simple terms, an endowment refers to a dedication of any kind of property (movable or immovable), which is made for a specific purpose. This purpose can either be religious or charitable, or for education, health, or any other purpose for the benefit of the public.
What are the essentials of a valid endowment?
For an endowment to be valid, the following essentials need to be fulfilled:
- The dedication of the property must be made in definite terms and permanently. The purpose of the dedication should be charitable and the donor must not take any benefits arising out of such property.
- The purpose for which the dedication has been made must be clear.
- The property that has been dedicated must be unambiguous, as any doubt regarding the property might lead to questions regarding the validity of the endowment.
- The founder of the endowment must be competent to do so, that is, he/she must be of sound mind, must have attained the age of majority, and must not be legally disqualified.
- The endowment must be in consonance with the provisions of law and should only be made for legitimate purposes.
What are the different types of endowments?
Endowments can be divided into religious endowments and charitable endowments. Religious endowments, also known as debutter property, can further be classified into private endowments and public endowments.
When a property is dedicated to religious purposes, it is known as a religious endowment. The management of such property is handled by Shebaits and Mahants. Public endowments are those wherein the dedication of the property which consists of a temple, is made for the benefit of the general public. It is important that before declaring the endowment as public, the intention of the founder and the degree of right to worship given to the public are analysed.
Private endowments, on the other hand, are set up for the worship of a family deity. The public has no say or interest in the endowment and thus, the benefit arising out of such endowment is only for specific individuals or members of the family.
Charitable endowments include all endowments except Maths (usually monastic institutions) and debutter property. These endowments are primarily established for the purpose of carrying out charitable activities and for the benefit of those in need. Several institutions fall within the scope of a charitable endowment, such as Dharamshala, shelter homes for the elderly, establishments providing free food and water, etc.
Who are Shebaits and Mahants?
Shebait refers to an individual who is responsible for the maintenance and management of the deity. The Shebait is obligated to serve the deity and look after the idol and the properties, as prescribed by the customs and usages.
Mahant is the head of the Math and is given the role of managing the property of the Math. Mahant is regarded as the spiritual head of the Math and is required to perform religious activities and worship the idol. He can also be described as a trustee of properties in the Math.
Can a public temple be converted into a private one, or vice versa?
A public temple cannot be converted into a private temple. Whereas, it is possible to convert a private temple into a public temple. This is possible because sometimes private temples might become reputable enough to attract a large number of worshippers, which can lead them to become public in nature. This was also held in the case of Goswami Shri Mahalaxmi Vahuji vs. Rannchhoddas Kalidas (1970).
What are religious endowments under Muslim law?
Under the Muslim law, a religious endowment is known as a Wakf. It is an endowment of a permanent nature, which is set up for religious, educational, or charitable purposes. Similar to a Hindu religious endowment, a Wakf can be set up to provide benefits to the general public or to specific people. Wakfs are governed by the Wakf Act, 1995. It contains provisions for establishing Wakf Boards at both state and central levels, to supervise the administration of Wakfs in the country.
There are 2 types of Wakfs- Wakf alal aulad and Wakf lil allah. Wakf alal aulad is set up for the specific benefit of the family members or descendants of the wakf founder. After the family line perishes, this wakf is then used for the benefit of society. Wakf lil allah, on the other hand, is solely created for religious or charitable purposes, to help the general public or some specific sections of society.
References
