Gujarat HC Dismisses 45-Year-Old Appeals, Confirms Narsinhji Temple at Dhaman Is a Public Trust
Justice J.C. Doshi dismissed three connected appeals, holding that the Narsinhji Temple at Village Dhaman is a public trust and its properties belong to the deity, not the Mahant's heirs.
A dispute that began in 1952 with a devotees' application before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Baroda, reached its conclusion on 22 June 2026 when Justice J.C. Doshi, sitting singly at the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dismissed all three connected first appeals. The court confirmed that the Shri Narsinhji Temple at Village Dhaman, Taluka Navsari, is a public trust under the Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950 (GPT Act), that its properties are trust properties, and that the five trustees appointed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Navsari in November 2024 were validly appointed. The court described four decades of continued litigation by the Mahant's heirs as an “egregious abuse of the judicial process” that had weaponised procedural delay to deny finality to a finding made as far back as 1971.
A Dispute Rooted in 1952: Private Deity or Public Temple?
The core contest was whether the idol of Lord Narsinhji, installed at Village Dhaman, was a private deity belonging to the Mahant's lineage, or a public idol to which the general public had a right of worship, pooja and aarti. The Mahant's position, maintained across generations, was that an ancestor had brought a portable metal idol from Village Bharatpur, settled in a hut at Dhaman, and that the temple, along with all surrounding agricultural and other properties, was private.
On 7 June 1952, devotees of Lord Narsinhji filed an application before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Baroda Circle, claiming the idol was a public idol and the temple a public place. The application was registered as Civil Misc. Application No. 27 of 1952. After an inquiry under Sections 19 and 20 of the GPT Act, the Deputy Charity Commissioner allowed the application on 2 June 1954, holding the temple and its properties to be public trust properties. The then Mahant, Dayaram Guru Govinddas, appealed under Section 70 of the GPT Act. The Charity Commissioner, Bombay dismissed the appeal on 25 July 1955.
The Mahant then moved the District Court, Surat under Section 72 of the GPT Act on 21 September 1955. That application was eventually transferred to the District Court, Valsad at Navsari and renumbered as Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 1964. Separately, three public-spirited persons, after obtaining permission from the Charity Commissioner on 20 October 1954, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 30 of 1954 before the District Court, Surat under Section 50 of the GPT Act, seeking removal of the Mahant, rendition of accounts, appointment of new trustees, and a declaration that properties in Schedules B and C were trust properties. That suit was also transferred to Navsari and renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 1964. Both proceedings were consolidated and heard together.
The District Court decided both on 16 September 1971, reversing the Charity Commissioner's findings. It held the temple to be a private deity and the properties to be the Mahant's private properties, dismissing the civil suit in consequence.
The 1977 Division Bench Ruling That Set the Foundation
The devotees appealed. First Appeal No. 803 of 1971 challenged the decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 1964, and First Appeal No. 222 of 1972 challenged the decision in Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 1964. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, comprising Justice J.B. Mehta and Justice P.D. Desai, heard both appeals together and by judgment dated 11/12 August 1977, quashed and set aside the District Court's findings. The Division Bench held conclusively that the Narsinhji Temple is a public trust under the GPT Act and that persons from the general public have every right to offer pooja, seva and darshan and to celebrate festivals within the temple premises.
On the question of which specific properties were public trust properties and which were private, the Division Bench remanded the matter to the District Court for fresh determination, directing it to decide the remaining issues in the civil suit in light of its findings. The Division Bench also expressed hope that the District Court would dispose of the litigation within six months.
Mahant Dayaramdas challenged the Division Bench judgment before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 4249–4250 of 1978. On 2 May 1979, the Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of the SLPs, with liberty to agitate the questions raised as and when proceedings arising from the High Court judgment were adopted. The Division Bench's finding that the temple is a public trust thus remained unaltered.
The Remand Proceedings and the 1978 District Court Decree
On remand, the reconvened proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 1964 proceeded without meaningful participation from the Mahant's side. Mahant Dayaramdas had died during the pendency of the earlier appeals; his heirs were brought on record but, despite being served, chose not to appear or contest the remand proceedings.
By decision dated 11 September 1978, the District Judge passed a detailed final order. Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 1964 was dismissed with a modification: specific survey numbers across villages including Dhaman, Chokha, Asunder, Talsadi, Kolagna, Pangha, Algadh, Vaheval, Butwada, Anahati, Karohaka and Shanker-Talavani were declared trust properties under Category A (Part I). Buildings within the temple compound, the Ram Rasayan Farmacy compound, and other structures at Dhaman were declared trust properties under Category A (Part II). All movable properties worth Rs. 15,026.05 listed in the Charity Commissioner's inventory of 26 June 1954 were declared trust properties under Category A (Part III). Properties alienated by the Mahant, listed in Schedule B, and properties gifted by the Mahant to Raghuvirdas, listed in Schedule C, were also declared trust properties, subject to limited exceptions.
Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 1964 was decreed. Five named persons from Village Dhaman were appointed trustees. A scheme for administration and management of the trust was approved. The Mahant's name was directed to be deleted from the public trust register, and the entry regarding Guru-to-Chela succession was also directed to be deleted. The heirs of the deceased Mahant were directed to deliver possession of Category A properties to the trustees, and the trustees were directed to take proceedings to recover Category B and C properties.
The 1979 Appeals and Four Decades of Procedural Attrition
Mr. Vijay, son of the deceased Mahant Dayaramdas and self-proclaimed Mahant, filed First Appeal No. 77 of 1979 and First Appeal No. 478 of 1979 before the Gujarat High Court challenging the 1978 District Court decree. Both appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution more than once and restored on applications. The original devotees and public-spirited persons who had fought the litigation either lost interest or passed away; many were deleted from the array of respondents by order dated 21 January 2026, leaving the Charity Commissioner as the primary respondent in the 1979 appeals.
In the meantime, on 1 December 2017, Mr. Bachubhai Chhotubhai Patel and four others filed an application under Section 47 of the GPT Act before the District Judge, Navsari, registered as Civil Misc. Application (Trust) No. 56 of 2017, seeking appointment of trustees for the Narsinhji Mandir Trust. Following a direction from a coordinate Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 22 October 2024 to decide the application in a time-bound manner, the 2nd Additional District Judge, Navsari, by judgment and order dated 29 November 2024, allowed the application and appointed the five applicants as trustees of the Lord Narsinhji Temple Trust, Registration No. A/265/Navsari.
Mr. Vijay Dayaram challenged this appointment by filing First Appeal No. 4206 of 2024 under Section 47(6) of the GPT Act. A coordinate Bench admitted the appeal on 20 January 2025 and stayed the operation of the trustee appointment order. By order dated 3 February 2025, First Appeal No. 4206 of 2024 was directed to be heard together with the 1979 appeals. All three appeals were thus tagged, heard and decided by the common judgment of 22 June 2026.
Arguments on Behalf of the Mahant's Heirs
Senior Counsel Mr. Mehul Shah, assisted by Mr. Arpit Kapadia, advanced several grounds across the three appeals.
On the scope of the appeals under Section 72(4) of the GPT Act, he argued that the provision is pari materia with Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that interference with findings of fact is permissible where material evidence was not considered or where inadmissible evidence was relied upon, relying on Ishwardas Jain (Dead) through LRs v. Sohanlal, AIR 2000 SC 426.
On the properties in Schedule A, he argued that the devotees had claimed relief only in respect of Schedules B and C in the plaint, and that the District Court had granted relief in respect of Schedule A without any prayer to that effect, which was impermissible under the basic tenets of the Code and the GPT Act, relying on Bharat Amrutlal Kothari v. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi, (2010) 1 SCC 234 and Rohit Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCC 734.
On burden of proof, he argued that the burden under Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act, 1872 lay upon the plaintiffs to prove that the properties had a religious character, and that mere pleading was not proof. He relied on Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558 and Adiveppa & Ors. v. Bhimappa & Ors., (2017) 9 SCC 586.
On the nature of the properties, he argued that gift deeds executed by villagers in favour of individual Mahants, revenue entries consistently standing in the Mahant's name, and the Mahants' own commercial activities (including agricultural operations, money-lending, and a partnership in a flour mill) established that the properties were of a secular character. He relied on Bihar State Board Religious Trust, Patna v. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das, (1971) 1 SCC 574, the Privy Council judgment in Pandit Parmanand v. Nihal Chand & Ors., AIR 1938 PC 195, and the Patna High Court judgment in Mahant Ramsharan Das v. Jairam Das, AIR 1943 Patna 135, for the proposition that descent of property from Guru to Chela does not by itself impart a religious character.
On the inquiry proceedings, he argued that the Deputy Charity Commissioner under Sections 19 and 20 of the GPT Act had no jurisdiction to adjudicate title to immovable properties where conflicting claims were made, relying on the Bombay High Court Full Bench in Keki Pestonji Jamadar v. Rodabai Khodadad Merwan Irani, 1971 SCC OnLine Bom 74.
On the trustee appointment in First Appeal No. 4206 of 2024, he argued that the 2nd Additional District Judge had failed to apply the criteria under Section 47(4) of the GPT Act, including the wishes of the author of the trust and the customs and usages of the trust, and had instead relied on a Gram Sabha resolution, which was not a recognised mode of appointment. He argued that Mr. Vijay Dayaram, as the son of the last Mahant, should have been appointed trustee in keeping with the Guru-Chela tradition, relying on Pandit Vasudev Vyas (Dead) through LRs v. Board of Management, S.S.J.S. Peeth, AIR 2006 Online SC 570.
He also sought punitive action against the newly appointed trustees for allegedly mutating their names in trust properties despite the stay order of 20 January 2025, invoking Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code and the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Doshi rejected each ground in turn.
On the public trust finding, the court held that the Division Bench's 1977 determination that the Narsinhji Temple is a public trust was conclusive and had not been disturbed. The Mahant's withdrawal of the SLPs before the Supreme Court in 1979, with liberty reserved only to agitate questions in proceedings arising from the High Court judgment, meant the public trust character of the temple was no longer res integra. The 1979 appeals were filed under Section 72(4) of the GPT Act and were confined to the question of which properties were public trust properties and which were private — not to the foundational question of whether the temple was a public trust.
On the Schedule A properties, the court found that the District Court had not granted relief beyond what was prayed for. The inquiry proceedings under Section 19 of the GPT Act and the suit proceedings under Section 50 of the GPT Act had been consolidated, and the schedules of properties in both proceedings were analogous. The inquiry report and the suit proceedings had conflated into one final decision, and the District Court's treatment of Schedule A properties was within the scope of the consolidated proceedings.
On the jurisdiction of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, the court held that the inquiry under Section 19 of the GPT Act had remained within its bounds and had not independently adjudicated title. Because the inquiry was clubbed with the suit under Section 50, the final decision was that of the District Court exercising civil jurisdiction, not an excess of the inquiry authority.
On burden of proof and the nature of the properties, the court distinguished Bihar State Board on its facts. It found that the gift deeds executed by villagers in favour of the Mahants were made in the Mahants' capacity as managers or pujaris of the temple, not in their personal capacity. The stipulations in those deeds that the Mahant's successor would be entitled to enjoy the properties, where succession ran by Guru-Chela tradition and not personal succession, indicated dedication to the deity. The Barkhali lands granted by the erstwhile State of Baroda were admittedly granted for the maintenance of the temple; their subsequent conversion and sale by the Mahant as administrator of the temple confirmed their trust character. Mahant Dayaram's own Exhibit-51, a list of properties furnished by him in the inquiry proceedings, contained admissions that several properties were of a religious nature dedicated to Lord Narsinhji. Revenue entries, while carrying evidentiary value, could not by themselves establish absolute title when traversed by other unimpeachable documentary evidence.
On the wills executed by successive Mahants (Exhibits 39 to 42), the court noted that the first two wills favoured the devotees' case that the properties were attached to the temple. The later two wills, executed during the pendency of the dispute, were treated with appropriate caution.
On the trustee appointment under Section 47, the court held that the District Court was not required to conduct a full trial but an inquiry to ascertain who would best serve the interests of the public having an interest in the trust. The District Court had examined the Gram Sabha resolution of 26 January 2016 and the draft scheme approved in the 1978 decree. Following the stay order of 20 January 2025, the court had directed the Charity Commissioner to conduct a fresh inquiry. On 30 January 2025, the Assistant Charity Commissioner convened a meeting at the Gram Panchayat hall at Village Dhaman, served notices, recorded statements of 71 persons including the Sarpanch, Deputy Sarpanch and Talati-cum-Mantri, and confirmed that the five proposed trustees were permanent residents of Dhaman, held property there, were persons of repute, served in other institutions, and had no criminal antecedents. The Charity Commissioner's report confirmed the finding of the District Court. Against this, the court found that Senior Counsel for the appellant had brought no adverse material beyond bare words.
On the contem