Judgment Narbdeshwar Pandey, J. 1. Plaintiff/appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment dated 17.8.1988, whereby and whereunder, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.6.1982, passed by the learned Additional Sub-ordinate Judge-II, Patna in Title Suit No. 219/20 of 1972. 2. The suit of the plaintiff was for a declaration that the temple at Rajapur, Patna and the properties attached to the same are private and personal properties of the plaintiff and the defendants/respondents have no right and interest. As per the case of the plaintiff. Deo Sharan Das was the Mahanth of the Pranami Mandir, situated in Mahalla Rajapur, in the town of Patna. There is no idol worship in Pranami sect of Hindu religious and the Pranamies are governed by their own customs and traditions which are not common in other Mandirs. Chintanand Das, the founding Mahanth of the Mandir believed in Pranami sect and propagated Pranami cult of Hindu religions and he constructed the Mandir by the side of his own residential house. He was also cremated in the land attached to that Mandir. Sri Kishun Das, nephew of Chintanand Das, was a great scholar and his profession was also to deliver lectures and discourses on the Pranami sect, who acquired properties through gifts, inherintence and also by purchase. Deosaran Das, the original plaintiff (now substituted by his nephew Raj Kishore Upadhya) was also a Prenami Hindu and was disciple of Sri Kishun Das. Later Kishun Das transferred the properties to Deosharan Das, who gifted the same to his nephew (the plaintiff). The Mahanth also used to acquire properties from time to time in his name and not in the name of the temple or Ashthal and thus, such properties were personal and could not be acquired by the Trust in view of the provisions of Sec. 2(1) of the Hindu Religious Trust Act. 3. Whereas according to the defendants, the temple, along with the other properties, was already acquired by the Religious Trust Board, in short the Board. The plaintiff had no concern with the temple or its properties, since he had himself filed returns and budgets from time to time since the year, 1981 and all necessary formalities were completed to declare the temple and properties as the properties of the Board. The plaintiff had no concern with the temple or its properties, since he had himself filed returns and budgets from time to time since the year, 1981 and all necessary formalities were completed to declare the temple and properties as the properties of the Board. The defendants have also relied on several documents and adduced evidence in support of their claim that neither the temple nor the properties attached to the temple were the personal properties of the plaintiff. 4. As pointed out earlier, the sole point involved in this case is whether the Pranami Mandir and the properties attached to it are the properties of the Board or they are the personal properties of the plaintiff. In the suit, voluminous evidence both oral and documentary were adduced. The oral evidence mainly relate to those, who are the devotees and Pranami cult and visit the temple for the purposes of worship and prayer. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court both after considering the documentary as well as oral evidence of the parties have held that long course of user by the public for the purposes of worship of the temple and Ashthal has established that the temple and its properties were dedicated for the worship and prayer of the general public and not only for the family members of the plaintiff. Therefore, in this background while interpreting the endowment or the deed of gift one can safely infer that institution was dedicated for user by the public. 5. Mr. Mazumdar, Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that both the Courts have rejected the case of the plaintiff basically on the ground that returns and budgets with respect to the properties of the temple were filed before the Board from time to time. But, unfortunately, they failed to take into consideration the compelling circumstances under which the returns were submitted to the Board. He contended that in fact, such returns were filed after receipt of notices, issued by the Board. Therefore, it would not be proper to hold that those returns were filed wilfully. He contended that mere filing of the returns by the plaintiff on the coercion or threat of the Board would not be a ground to hold that the property was of a public nature. Therefore, it would not be proper to hold that those returns were filed wilfully. He contended that mere filing of the returns by the plaintiff on the coercion or threat of the Board would not be a ground to hold that the property was of a public nature. In support of such a contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the apex Court in the case of The Bihar State Board of Religious Trust V/s. Mahanth Sri Biseshwar Das -- as also the decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Religious Trust Board V/s. Mahanth Jaleshwar Gir etc. 1968 PLJR 507 and Bihar State Board of Religious Trust V/s. Acharya Mahanth Amrit Das & Anr -- . In my view, there cannot be any controversy so far the legal proposition is concerned. But it is well known that each case has to be considered and judged with reference to the facts and evidence adduced by the parties in such case. 6. Keeping in mind the facts, noticed above, and from a bare reference to different paragraphs of the judgment of the trial Court, and particularly paragraph Nos. 16 to 35 of the appellate Court, it would appear that a Large number of documents filed on behalf of the parties have been considered. Exts. 3 to 3/q are the sale-deeds of different years. They have been filed to show that the lands were sold to Deosaran Das, the original plaintiff, Mahanth Sri Krishna Das, Lachho Devi and Chintanand Das in individual capacity and there was no assertion that such properties were sold to the temple or they were acquired on behalf of the temple. Ext. 3/c has been filed to show that the sale-deed was executed in the year, 1883 in the name of Chintanand Das, who was the founder of the temple and his occupation was described in that document as Mahajani and Jamindari. Exts. 4 and 5 series were the receipts granted in individual capacity to the persons in whose favour they were granted. Exts. 6, 13 and 13/a are the exchange deeds executed by Mahanth or his Chela in Individual capacity and not as a representative or agent of the temple. Ext. 7 series are the deeds of gift executed by Deosharan Das to the appellant Raj Kishore Upadhya and others. On the basis of these documents including Ext. Exts. 6, 13 and 13/a are the exchange deeds executed by Mahanth or his Chela in Individual capacity and not as a representative or agent of the temple. Ext. 7 series are the deeds of gift executed by Deosharan Das to the appellant Raj Kishore Upadhya and others. On the basis of these documents including Ext. 14 (Izara-deed), claim was made that various properties from time to time either purchased by sale-deed or gift-deeds by different persons were in individual capacity and not on behalf of the temple. 7. Before turning to the documents of the respondents, it is necessary to reiterate the finding of the appellate Court regarding Ext. 7/d which is a registered Hibbanama (gift) dated 3.11.1908 executed by Gosain Aasha Das, Chela Radhika Das with regard to the properties of Rajauli in favour of Krishna Das. Undisputedly, this document clearly shows that the property was given for religious purposes and not otherwise. According to the appellate Court, this document completely negatives the claim of the appellant that the property was given to Sri Krishna Das in his individual capacity. 8. Documents filed on behalf of the respondents have been considered by the appellate Court in paragraphs 20 to 32 of the judgment. On the basis of consideration of these documents, both the Courts have held that the properties attached to the temple were exclusively for the use of the temple. The plaintiff and other Mahanths were, in fact, nominated as Intajamkar Muntazim (Caretaker) of the temple. Ext. R/1 is a Khatian dated 10.11.1910 wherein, the nature and ownership of the property have been described as Gairmazarua Hakdar Pranami Mandir we Sebait Mahanth Sri Krishna Das. Ext. E is a registered Arpannama de(tedV3-1937 executed by Ram Nayan Mahto in favour of Sri Kishunji Maharaj. This document shows that the property was given to Sri Krishna Ji. Ext. E/1 dated 22.4.1943 is a deed of gift executed by Dhanukhdhari Singh in favour of the Kishunchand Thakurbari for the purposes of Rag-Bhog, etc. Ext. E/4 is another deed of gift dated 20.6.1949 executed by Ram Prit in favour of Radha Krishna Ji Asthal. In this document also, it has been recited that the husband of executor was a follower of Pranami Mandir. Hence for the peace of his soul, the property was gifted to the Mandir Ext. Ext. E/4 is another deed of gift dated 20.6.1949 executed by Ram Prit in favour of Radha Krishna Ji Asthal. In this document also, it has been recited that the husband of executor was a follower of Pranami Mandir. Hence for the peace of his soul, the property was gifted to the Mandir Ext. F is a registered sale-deed of the year, 1959 executed by original plaintiff Mahanth Deosaran Das wherein, Mahanth Sri Krishna Das was described as Munazim Sebait of Sri Radhey Shyam Ji Pranami Mandir, Rajapur, Patna. It would further be relevant to mention that this sale-deed was made after obtaining necessary approval of the Religious Trust Board and communicated vide its letter dated 13.3.1959. In fact, this is a very important document to show that the property was sold for the benefit of the temple after obtaining necessary approval of the Board as required under the law. If this was a private property, there could be no reason to get permission of the Board. 9. Ext. N is the original plaint of Title Suit No. 191 of 1959 filed on behalf of Pranami Mandir through its Mahanth Deosaran Ji, Sebait and Muntazim. This suit was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff as also to declare that the defendant was a month-to-month tenant. In the plaint, the status of the plaintiff and the Mahanth was described as follows: YE KI MAUJE RAJAPUR ELAKE THANA DIGHA PRAGANA PHULWARI JILA PATNA ME EK BANA PRANAMI MANDIR SAMAWE SE KAYAM HAI WAHA SRIKRISHNA BHAGWAN KA PUJA PATH WO KIRTAN WAGAIRAH HUA KARTA HAI AUR MANDIR ME JO JAIDAD HAI USKA INJAM WO DEKHBHAL BAJARIYA MAHANTH KA HOTA HAI. AJKAL MAHANTH MUDAI No. 2 HAI AUR MANDIR KA MUKADME RAJA NE MUDAI NO.1 BAJARIYA MUDAI NO.2 MAHANTH KO CHARWANA JATA HAI. In paragraph 2 of the said plaint, it was mentioned as under: YE KI MADIR MAJKUR JAJAT ARPAN SUDHA WO KHARIDCI HAI WO JO JAYDAD KHARIDGT HAI WO NAM SE MAHANTH KE KHARIDIJATI THI AUR HAKIYAT DAKHAL KABJA MANDIR KA WO MAHANTH KA HAI. This plaint was filed by none else other than Mahanth Deosaran Das indicating the nature of the properties, acquired by different sale-deeds and gift deeds. This plaint was filed by none else other than Mahanth Deosaran Das indicating the nature of the properties, acquired by different sale-deeds and gift deeds. On behalf of the defendants, it was contended if under a particular circumstance any stand was taken about the property at that stage, it cannot be used in a subsequent suit. In my view, there appears no merit in this contention. Because that suit was filed by the original plaintiff himself. 10 Ext. F/2 is a registered sale-deed of the year, 1960, executed by Mahanth Deosaran Das in favour of Ramawati devi. This document was also executed after obtaining necessary permission of the Board. Similarly, Ext. F/4, sale-deed of the year, 1972, was executed by Deosaran Das after obtaining permission of the Board. The capacity of the executor in these documents has been described as sebait of Pranami Mandir. The purpose of-the disposal of the properties was to acquire money in order to make payment of the taxes to the Board as also to meet the day-to-day expenses of the temple. Ext. G series are the Chowkidari assessment list in the name of the Pranami Mandir and not in the name of anybody in individual capacity. Other important documents are Ext. C series, copies of budgets of Pranami Mandir submitted by the Mahanth and Ext. B series are the rent receipts granted by the State of Bihar in the name of Pranami temple. Whereas Ext. in series are the copies of returns filed by the plaintiff before the Board from time to time about the properties. 11. On behalf of the Religious Trust Board also, some papers have been filed. Ext. A/1 to A/1-14 are the letter of different dates of the year, 1957, 58, 61,62, 63, 66, 71, 72 and 93, issued by the Board to Mahanth Deosaran Das granting him permission to sell the temple land and also asking him for submission of budget and returns and also to furnish the details of the consideration money received and further directed him to show cause about the wastage of temple properties, other irregularities and the defaults committed by the Mahanth in respect of vital omissions, suppressions in returns and the sales made, etc. 12. Ext. B/1 to B/1-30 are the order-sheets of the Board with respect to Pranami Mandir from the year, 1958 to 1972, Ext. 12. Ext. B/1 to B/1-30 are the order-sheets of the Board with respect to Pranami Mandir from the year, 1958 to 1972, Ext. C/1 to C/1-1 is a general public notice dated 13.6.1972 issued by the Board, constituting a committee for Pranami temple and a letter dated 10.7.1972 sent to the members of the said committee. Ext. D series are the details of the land sold and purchased including petitions for permission to sell furnished by Deosaran Das, the original plaintiff to the Board and Ext. B series are the returns submitted by the Mahanth to the Board, Ext. F/1 is an estimate for repairs of temple and further construction. 13. Therefore, from a bare reference to the above documents, it would appear that Pranami temple or the properties attached to it are not the personal property of the plaintiff, rather they are being used by the general public. 14. I have already noticed the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the returns and budgets, filed on behalf of the plaintiff under coercion and threat, cannot be a ground to declare the property as a property of Religious Trust Board. But in my view, on a close scrutiny of different documents of the parties, as noticed above, it would not be proper to allege that such returns or budgets were filed under coercion or threat. Because in this case, it has already been noticed that not only returns were filed, rather while admitting the nature/character of the properties to be public, the plaintiff from time to time had obtained permission of the Board to register sale-deeds and other documents. 15. Apart from what has been noticed above, the founder of the temple Chintanand had himself described as the Mahanth of the temple. Some other Mahanth, i.e., Krishna Maharaj and the original plaintiff had described themselves as Mahanths or as a sebait. Therefore, if the Mahanth were treating the temple and the properties as their own, there was no occasion for them to describe themselves either as Mahanths or Sebaits of the temple. Even purchasers of the properties from time to time from these Mahanths had knowledge that the sale-deeds were being executed after obtaining necessary permission of the Religious Trust Board. 16. Even purchasers of the properties from time to time from these Mahanths had knowledge that the sale-deeds were being executed after obtaining necessary permission of the Religious Trust Board. 16. So far turning to the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, it would appear that out of 61 witnesses of the plaintiff, 29 are formal. These witnesses were examined to support the claim of the plaintiff that the temple and the properties were the private properties of the plaintiff. But most of the witnesses have accepted that the general public used to visit the temple for worship after taking bath and also offered flowers. Similarly, P.Ws. 12, 14 and 16 have also accepted that the general public used to come to the temple for worship and performing puja every day. As against the witnesses of the plaintiff, a large number of witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the respondents. They were examined to support the case of the respondents that general public used to visit the temple for the purposes of worship. Therefore, the properties attached to the temple are of public nature. Most of the witnesses have also stated that the plaintiff was, in fact, intazamkar (caretaker) and not the owner of the property. Learned Counsel for the appellant, of course, contended that the appellate Court has failed to deal with the evidence of all the witnesses in detail. Therefore, the findings recorded by him are vitiated. In my view, it is not always necessary for an appellate Court to consider each and every witnesses examined in the case. All the time, the Court is required to examine the evidence of relevant witnesses. Because in this case certain witnesses have said that general public used to go to the temple for worship. On the other hand, some of them have said that only the family members of the plaintiff used to warship and general public was not allowed. Therefore, having regard to the nature of evidence, the appellate Court has rightly given emphasis to the documentary evidence of the parties. 17. In the background of the facts, noticed above, in my view, the appellant has failed to make out any ground to differ with the views expressed by the Courts below. Therefore, having regard to the nature of evidence, the appellate Court has rightly given emphasis to the documentary evidence of the parties. 17. In the background of the facts, noticed above, in my view, the appellant has failed to make out any ground to differ with the views expressed by the Courts below. In the result, for the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this appeal and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Indu Prabha Singh, J. 18 I agree.