After 47 Years, Gujarat High Court Holds Baroda's Narsinhji Temple As Public Trust; Rejects Claim By Late Priest's Son Over Temple Properties

The Gujarat High Court rejected the 47-year-old appeals filed by the legal heirs of the late priest of Narsinhji temple in Baroda who had claimed that the properties of the temple were private properties and belonged to him. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 172]

In doing so the court held that the temple of Lord Narsinhji is a public trust and the appellant, the son of the late Mahant, was neither legally appointed priest of the temple nor was he declared as a Chela (disciple) of the late Mahant. The court further held that appellant had not produced any evidence to prove his case.

Justice JC Doshi observed:

"...the temple of Lord Narsinhji is a public trust and the deity is a public deity is no more res-integra. The issue was squarely decided by the Division Bench of this Court...the status of late Mahant Dayaram, who at the relevant time was the appellant, was no more than a Pujari of the temple and the respondents therein were held to be the trustees of the public trust...The present appellant – Mr. Vijay is neither legally appointed Poojari of the temple nor he is declared as a Chela of the late Mahant Dayaram". 

The court said that the averment of the late Mahant Dayaram, who claims that the immovable properties are not Debutter (land, funds are permanently dedicated to a deity) but his personal property or the property in secular nature and claimed that he or his Gurus were doing business or were involved in the money lending, remains to be far less than the proof.

"No evidence or even a whisper of it has been produced on the record to show that any of the Mahant ever has done any business and had a independent source of income to purchase the land," the court said. 

It said that when the Mahant who claims title over these properties based upon unregistered documents, had except making bare statements had not produced any other evidence on record to establish such aspects.

"...the appellant - Mr. Vijay is not appointed as a Mahant of the Temple either by any instrument or by the custom and rituals recognized to be followed for appointing the Mahant. He is fighting the issue only on the ground that he is the son of late Mahant Dayaram. It is equally of importance that the properties, for which the super-duper fight is going on, has been succeeded or descent from Mahant/Guru to Chela. All Gurus and Mahant, except late Mahant Dayaram were celibate.

Late Mahant Dayaram was a Hedonist or Sybarite, who got married, and did not practice celibacy like the former Mahants. Moreover, there was no personal succession, i.e. a succession in favour of the natural relative or natural heir. It is only a succession from Guru to Chela. Then, in that circumstances, how can the appellant claim that the properties which belonged to and were in the name of late Dayaram, can be inherited under the personal law in his favour. This question remain unanswered," the court said. 

It further said that the Mahant, who is expected to renounce the world and worldly affairs and being far from the monetary or property transaction, has rather "exploited the system and taken the advantage of his name, although as an Administrator of the immoveable properties of a deity, have dealt with those properties treating it as personal property".

"In fact, by egregious abuse of the process of law, the Mahant has taken full exploitation of the deity's properties...In view of above, for the foregoing reasons, all the three appeals are arid of merits, rather it is an end result of deliberate stretching of appeals over more than four decades, which egregiously displays abuse of the judicial process. Probably it was a calculated approach that turns a mechanism for justice into a weapon of attrition, actively exploiting systematic backlogs to wear down the very purpose of declaring Lord Narsinhji's temple as a public trust" it added.

The court was hearing appeals in a dispute between Lord Narsinhji and his Mahant Late Dharamdas Guru Govinddas. The Mahant claimed that the idol of Lord Narsinhji is a private idol and the house where the said idol is placed is a personal temple, and all the properties situated in the various surrounding villages attached with the Narsinhji Temple are his personal properties.

Meanwhile the devotees claimed that the idol of Lord Narsinhji is a public idol and the place where the idol is placed is a public temple. Everyone from the general public has a right to worship and offer “pooja” and “aarti” and that, all the properties dedicated either by the erstwhile State of Baroda or by villagers, whether standing in the name of the Mahant or in the name of Lord Narsinhji or in any other name of Lord Narsinhji, are public properties and they are the part of the Trust's properties

The devotees of Lord Narsinhji filed an application before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Baroda Circle on 07.06.1952 claiming that the idol of Lord Narsinhji is a public idol and the house where it is placed is a public temple, and all the properties in the surrounding villages are public properties. The said application was registered as Civil Misc. Application No. 27 of 1952 by the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Baroda, who initiated an inquiry under Sections 19 and 20 of the 'GPT Act'. 

This inquiry was allowed by the Deputy Charity Commissioner on 02.06.1954 after issuing notice to Late Mahant Dayaram Guru Govinddas. In the proceedings before the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Late Mahant Dayaram Guru Govinddas raised multiple contentions and claimed that the idol of Lord Narsinhji is a private deity and all the properties, including the place where the idol is kept are not the public properties, but are private properties.

The Deputy Charity Commissioner, Baroda, allowed the application filed by the devotees and held that all the properties including lands, buildings as well as movable properties inherited by the Mahant were trust properties.

Subsequently the dispute reached the Gujarat High Court in 1971 in an earlier round of litigation. The division bench held that the temple of Lord Narsinhji is a public deity and that the temple is a public temple. It had held that persons from the general public have every right to offer pooja, seva and darshan, and also to celebrate all the festivals, which are celebrated within the premises of the temple

On the question whether the properties mentioned in Schedule-A, B and C are concerned are public or private properties,  the Division Bench remanded the matter to the District Court to decide afresh.

The proceedings in the civil suit were re-conducted and the court held that certain properties were not temple trust properties while the rest belonged to the temple. Being aggrieved, Vijay, the self-proclaimed Mahant and son of deceased Mahant Dayaramdas, filed the two appeals. He also filed an appeal against an order appointing Bachubhai Chhotubhai Patel and four others as Trustees of the public trust. 

All three appeals were dismissed. 

Case title: HEIRS OF MAHANT DAYARAMDAS- BAI PADMA WD/O DAYARAMDAS (DELETED) & ORS. v/s  CHARITY COMMISSIONER & ORS.

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 77 of 1979 and batch

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 172