KACHA KANTI SEVA SAMITY AND ANR. versus SHRI KACHA KANTI DEVI AND OS.

KACHA KANTI SEVA SAMITY AND ANR. versus SHRI KACHA KANTI DEVI AND OS.

Respondents, as de facto shebaits, proved their possession and exercise of all functions of shebait though lacking formal legal title. Presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act applied to the ancient documents produced. Their exclusive performance of shebait functions entitles them to maintain such position, while the public retains right of free access to worship and to contribute to temple development.

Parties
Appellant: Kacha Kanti Seva Samity; Respondent: Shri Kacha Kanti Devi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Decision of Gauhati High Court in Second Appeal No. 136 of 1985
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Shebaitship, Declaration of Rights, Public Vs Private Endowment, Evidence (section 90 Evidence Act)
Religious Endowments Civil Law Shebaitship Declaration of Rights Public Vs Private Endowment Evidence (section 90 Evidence Act)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kacha Kanti Seva Samity

Appellant

Shri Kacha Kanti Devi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Decision of Gauhati High Court in Second Appeal No. 136 of 1985

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether de facto shebaits can claim right of shebaitship absent formal appointment
  2. 2 Whether public contributions and usage make the endowment public or private
  3. 3 Whether long exclusive enjoyment and exercise of shebaitship by respondents is sufficient to uphold their right

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents, as de facto shebaits, proved their possession and exercise of all functions of shebait though lacking formal legal title. Presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act applied to the ancient documents produced. Their exclusive performance of shebait functions entitles them to maintain such position, while the public retains right of free access to worship and to contribute to temple development.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed.

Orders

  • Suit decreed in part insofar as respondents/plaintiffs' right to de facto shebaitship of the suit temple is concerned.
  • Respondents entitled to maintain such position and status unless held guilty of misconduct.