1. Where the origin of the endowment cannot be ascertained, the question whether the user of the temple by members of the public is as of right;
2. The fact that the control and management vests either in a large body of persons or in the members of the public and the founder does not retain any control over the management. Allied to this may be circumstances where the evidence shows that there is provision for a scheme to be framed by associating the members of the public at large;
3. Where, however, a document is available to prove the nature and original of the endowment and the recitals of the document show that the control and management of the temple is retained with the founder of his descendants and the extensive properties are dedicated for the purpose of the maintenance of the temple belonging to the founder himself, this will be a conclusive proof to show that the endowment was of a private nature.
4. Where the evidence shows that the founder of the endowment did not make any stipulation for offerings or contributions to be made by members of the public to the temple, this would be an important intrinsic circumstance to indicate the private nature of the endowment. [Radhakanta Deb v The Commr of Hindu Religious Endowment, A.I.R. 1981 SC 798],
A very important distinction between the public and private endowment is that in public endowment the property must be utilized for the purpose for which it is meant and the power to alienate is strictly limited, but in a private endowment the whole members of the family may by agreement, give it in a different direction from what it was originally meant.
Sometimes the executants merely give a different legal colour to the property. So the mere execution of the deed of endowment is not enough to constitute a valid endowment. The real object of the executant may be to defraud creditors, or to defeat the provisions of the ordinary law of descent or to restrain alienation and keep the property in perpetuity in the family. It is necessary for the validity of a deed of endowment that the executant should divest himself of the property.
It is determined by his subsequent acts and conduct. If the profit is used for the personal use and not for the worship of the idol and his subsequent dealings with the property show that he did not intend to create an endowment the dedication will be inoperative; and the property will not be treated as debutter property but still his own and it can be attached in the execution of a decree against him.
Where there is no real intention of the dedication of property to the idol but only an attempt to create perpetuity in favour of the executant’s descendants, the gift to the idol is void.