The Allahabad High Court held that the mere fact that members of the public visit a temple is not enough to establish that the trust managing it is a public trust. The Court observed that public access for worship alone cannot determine the legal character of a trust; its origin, management, and governing documents must also be examined.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the mere fact that members of the public visit a temple does not, by itself, prove that the trust managing it is of a public character.
Justice Prashant Kumar said while dismissing two petitions that claimed the Shri Ram Laxman-Janki Virajman Temple Trust was a public religious trust and sought court intervention in its administration under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Section 92 of the CPC deals with public charitable and religious trusts and allows courts to intervene for instance, by supervising trust administration, removing trustees, or framing schemes when there is breach or mismanagement.
The dispute related to the trust’s management and the appointment of its sarvarahkar (manager). The appellants challenged a 2022 order of the trial court.
They argued that the temple was a public religious trust and that the appointment of a new manager could be addressed through Section 92 proceedings.
The trust, however, contended that the temple and the trust were established by Gulzari Lal within his residential premises and had always been administered under a private arrangement created by the founder.
After examining the evidence, the court held that public worship access to a temple alone is not sufficient to establish that the trust is public in nature. It observed that control and management of the trust had remained with the founder and his successors, and that the trust properties were dedicated to the maintenance of the temple. On this basis, the court concluded that the trust was private.
The court further clarified that Section 92 applies only to public religious or charitable trusts. Since the trust in question was private, the suit filed under that provision was held to be not maintainable.
The court also noted that Shiv Gopal had already been recognized as the lawful manager of the trust in earlier proceedings, which had reached finality. It added that no member of the trust committee had objected to Shri Narayan succeeding him.
Finally, the court ruled that the question concerning the manager’s office had already been conclusively decided in earlier litigation and was therefore barred by res judicata, which prevents parties from re-litigating issues that have already been judicially determined.