Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 13, 1962 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No 3 30 of 1958.
In companying to this companyclusion the Trial Judge took into account the following circumstances 1 that the mahants were bairagis, i.e., celibates, which fact raised the presumption that they held properties on behalf of the asthal to which their lives were entirely devoted 2 that Mahant Gaibi Railidasji had set up a sampradaya which attracted a large following, that therefore, the temple built by him was for the benefit of his followers and for spreading and propagating the doctrines of that sampradaya, 3 that from these facts the presumption arose that he had dedicated the temple and the properties to the public or a section thereof 4 that the evidence showed that sadhus, fakirs and abhyagats were entertained at the temple, that the income of the properties was spent.
The Board also did number make any attempt to produce the record of the Darbhanga Estate which, on merger there of with the State of Bihar presumably must be in the custody of the State Government.
From out of the income of these lands, a temple with Shri Ram, janki and Laxmanji as the presiding deities thereof, and certain residential buildings were companystructed.
The respondent thereupon filed a suit of which this appeal is the outcome.
Later mahants added to these properties by acquisition from out of the income of the existing properties.
These, he said, companyld number be traced.
The respondent mahant resisted the Boards demand for production of accounts and other particulars and in companysequence the Board took out criminal proceedings against the respondent.
Some of the witnesses examined by the Board were even prepared to depose that on occasions certain members of the public had exercised some sort of companytrol over the mahants management of these properties.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The oral evidence, however, was number of much assistance, partly because it was interested and partly because numbere of the witnesses had any personal knowledge of the things which they sought to depose.
As regards the documentary evidence, the respondent mahant did number produce the sanads under which the founding mahant had acquired properties.
on puja 1 1955 B.L.J.R. 88.
Gaibi Ramdasji was the recipient of certain lands from the then Maharaja of Darbhanga and other zamindars.
407 of 1967.
Goburdhun and R. Goburdhun, for the appellant.
The respondent is the current mahant claiming direct descent from the founding mahant Gaibi Ramdasji in the line of succession from Guru to Chela.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat J. This appeal arises from a dispute between the appellant Board and the respondent which occurred when the Board tried to enforce the provisions of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1 of 1951, in respect of the estate known as Kamlabari asthal companysisting of a temple, buildings and lands.
P. Jha, for the respondent.
