Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Whether an institution is a matha or temple is to be decided on a dispute U/ s- 41(b) of the Act, when there is a dispute whether it is a matha or temple normally, burden under the Evidence Act would be on the person who would loose if the fact is not proved, 63 (1987) CLT 223 (Kunja Bihari Parida Vs. Sri Narayani Thakurani and Others) Duties of the Authorities under the Act – Explained – The deity of the statutory authority under the act would be first to consider the character of the institution. A religious institution may either be a matha or a temple, the consideration that would weigh with the authorities would, therefore, depends upon the character of the institution after the character of the institution is determined, the question of its being public or private would arise, 63 (1987) CLT 223 (Kunja Bihari Parida Vs. Sri Narayani Thakurani and Others) Distinction between private and public trust – explained – In the private trust the beneficiaries are definite and ascertained individuals or who, within a definite time, can be definitely ascertained but in the matter of public trust the beneficial interest must be vested in an uncertain or flactuating body of persons either the public at large or some considerable portion of it answering a particular description, 72 (1991) CLT 530 (Shri Rama Chandra Rana and others Vs. Hindu Public and Shri Kaleswar Mahadev at Kalarapadar and others) Under the provisions of the section the Assistant Commissioner of Endowment is to enquire and decide the question whether a trustee is hereditary one and institution is private or other than that of the religious institution. The theory of Lost grant is applied as the name itself indicates where chain is lost and the founder and time of foundation are not definitely ascertainable. In such case, it is necessary to make technical presumption to trace out lawful origin from contemporaneous materials. There is no hard and fast rule as to the length of time that is required to establish hereditary nature of the trustee can be laid down. 73 (1992) CLT 303 (Hindu Public represented through Jadunath Das and others Vs. Sankarsan Das and others) The Object of Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 41 of the Act – Explained – There cannot be any determination of the institution whether private or public, unless public are impleaded in a proceeding U/s- 41 of the Act, 74 (1992) CLT 309 (Purna Chandra Panigrahi Vs. Baidya Jani and others)