Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(da) Plaintiffs be awarded a compensation of sum of Rs. 45,000/- as claimed in para 17 above.

(e) Such other reliefs deems just be awarded.

(f) Costs of the suit be awarded. Decree be passed accordingly."

3. The plaintiffs' case stated in the plaint in support of the above reliefs, briefly stated, is that :

3.1 Defendant 1 Public Trust, comprises of many temples, and a masjid as shown in the description of this defendant ('D-1' for short) in the plaint cause title. It is registered as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ('the BPT Act' in short), Sri Veeranarayana temple being the main item of this Trust. This temple is an ancient temple said to have been built by one Jakkannachari somewhere during 13th or 14th century A.D. 3.2 The plaintiffs and defendant 2 are the hereditary Parupatyagars and Paricharakas of D-1 Trust Temples. The genealogy of their families is as given in paragraph 3 of the plaint. As could be seen from this genealogy, plaintiffs 4 to 8 are the sons of one Madhavachar, who died on 22-10-1983. Plaintiff 1 is his brother, and plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the descendants of late Madhavachar's another brother Vasu-devachar, who died on 19-9-1950. The father of late Vasudevachar, late Madhavachar and plaintiff 1-Bhimasenachar was one Srinivasachar, who died on 17-9-1950. Defendant 2 had a brother by name Narayanachar, who died issueless in 1986. They are the children of Pradyumnachar, who died on 25-7-1970. The common propositus of the parties was one late Govindabhat, who is five generations above plaintiff-1's-father late Srinivasachar and defendant 2 's-grandfather late Balachar --who died in 1949. The correctness of this family pedigree of the parties is not in dispute.

20. It was argued by Mr. C.R. Goulay, learned counsel for plaintiffs that the impugned orders of the Courts below are unsustainable in law, inasmuch as they are not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case and are in clear breach of well settled legal principles in the matter of grant or refusal of temporary injunction. To substantiate his contention, he argued that the fact the plaintiffs have been functioning as Paricharakas and Parupattegar of the Trust Temple in their own hereditary right is sufficiently borne out by the indisputable dependable material on record especially its admission by defendant-1 at paragraph 11 of his written statement. This undisputed material fact, he rightly maintained, makes out a strong prima facie case in plaintiffs' favour thereby fulfilling one of the essential requirements for grant of temporary injunction in their favour. Further, he also justifiably maintained that the duties of Paricharakas and Parupattegar as listed at paragraphs 4 and 5, respectively, of the plaint have not been specifically denied by the defendants in their written statement except the denial of the right of Parupattegar to be in custody of all the keys Including Garbhagudi of Viranarayana Temple mentioned at paragraph 5(ii), and the same should be taken for granted for the purpose of ad interim injunction, in view of Sub-rule (1) of Order 8, Rule 5 of C.P.C. which enjoins that if a material allegation of fact in the plaint remains specifically not disputed, then the same shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability, although the Court may in its discretion require any such fact to be proved otherwise than by such an admission HN, and ILR 1998 (2) Kant 748 (sic)). Elaborating the plaintiffs' case. Mr. C. R. Goulay submitted that as on the date of filing the present suit i.e., 18-1-1997, the plaintiffs' right to act as Paricharakas and Parupatyagar of the said temple, by their respective turns, was in fact subsisting by force of the interim order of the trial Court in O.S. No. 440/1995 and of this Court's order in C.R.P. No. 1437/1990, as per the respective turns, it was the turn of defendant 2 for the period 1996-97; another turn of plaintiffs during 1997-98, and again it was the turn of defendant-2 during 1998-99, and then it was the plaintiffs' turn during 1999-2000 to perform the same. The fact to this effect is also sworn to by plaintiff-1 in his affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. I and more particularly at paragraph 12 thereof. Since defendant-2 had been rendering the services to the temple as Paricharakas and Parupattegar. during his turn commencing from 12-11-1996 and lasting up to 31 -10-1997, and the plaintiffs' turn for performance of the said duties was to commence from 1-1-1997, there was no urgent need to file I.A. No. I on the date of filing of the suit itself i.e., 18-1-1997 and, therefore, the same had been filed on 27-3-1997 to safeguard and protect their said right during their next turn which was to commence from 1-11-1997. Since by virtue of the interim injunction order dated 21-10-1995 of the trial Court made in plaintiffs' favour in O.S. No. 440/1995 and of the order dated 30-9-1996 of this Court passed disposing of the said C.R.P. No. 1437/1990, the plaintiffs had, in fact, exercising their said right till the Deepavali of 1996 during their regular turn the same continued to exist albeit remained in abeyance during intervening turn of defendant-2. Therefore, as on the date of filing of the suit, the said right was vested with the plaintiffs and as such, they were entitled to temporary injunction as prayed in their I.A.No. 1 for its protection during pendency of the suit and to ensure maintenance of the status quo with respect thereto. It was further contended by Mr. Goulay that the said services of Paricharikas and Parupatyagar are being rendered to the said temple and its deity from generations by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant-2 and down to them, and that after abolition of the inam, the tenure of the Government lands attached to the said offices under Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 ('the Act of 1997' for short). The said services are being rendered by them meeting its expenditure out of their own pockets. Regard being had to the nature of the said services as also the fact that no fixed salary or determined payment was being made to the plaintiffs by the Temple Trust, it is inconceivable that they could be adequately compensated in terms of money, after Illegal termination by the Trust as contended by its learned senior counsel Mr. Vijaya Shankar, and which contention has found favour with the lower appellate Court. Therefore, Mr. Goulay argued that if the plaintiffs are prevented or obstructed from discharging their functions as hereditary Paricharakas and Parupattegar of the temple and its deity, they would suffer irreparable injury. In that view of the matter, there was no legal justification whatever for the Courts below in refusing the remedy of ad interim injunction in their favour.

    From :                                        Sri S. R. Savkar, 
                                                Chairman, Sri Veeranarayana & 
                                                Trikuteshwara Temple Trust,
                                                Gadag-582 101.  
 

 To :  
 

 1.   Sri Ramesh Madhavachar Gudi & Bros, Gadag.  
 

 2.  Sri B. S. Gudi & Sons, Gadag.  
 

 3. Sri Radhakanth Vasudevachar Gudi & Sons, Gadag.  
 

 Sub : Show-Cause Notice. Sirs,  
 

You have been appointed as Paricharika in Sri Veeranarayana Temple, you and other Paricharikas have been rendering service turn by turn. Many associations and institutions conducting activities in the temple, have sent complaints that you are not conducting yourself properly in Sri Veeranarayana Temple. You have been acting as Chief of the Temple. You have been publishing in the news papers matters irrelevant and against the administration of the Trust. You have been objecting, that any activity to be conducted in the temple, should not be undertaken without your permission and thereby you have been causing stoppage of conducting religious and cultural activities in the temple. You have been conducting improperly towards the devotees visiting the temple, that the trust committee has no powers and you have absolute powers. By your conduct, the devotees of Narayana Temple have formed wrong impressions. The devotees visiting the temple are decreasing in number by your conduct. You are not heeding to the trust committee, and you are not performing the duties of paricharikas satisfactorily. Inspite of informing you many times not to act in this manner you have not heeded to the words of the Trust Committee. Being tired of your conduct, the devotees of the Temple, the associations and Institutions, conducting activities in the temple are compelling us to terminate you from services, besides you have not been conducting yourself in a respectful manner with the Committee. You have been discharging the duties of the Trust Committee, therefore this notice is issued to you.

52. At this juncture, it is relevant to consider the trial Court's observation that the plaintiffs cannot be granted injunction with respect of the office of Parupatyagar because they have not placed any material on record to support their plea that the functions of Parupatyagar are as listed at paragraph 5 of the plaint. This observation of the trial Court is an erroneous observation. As already pointed out, the declaratory decree in the said L.C. No. 92/1948 had been obtained by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendant-2 from the competent civil Court declaring that they (excepting plaintiff-5 therein) were the Parupatyagar and Paricharakas of D-1 Trust Temple. It was a representative suit. It was supported by the then Panch Committee of D-1 Trust. Therefore, the present D-1's Panch Committee is also bound by the said decree as at the present stage, since its said impugned resolution and termination notices are found not worthy of presumption that they are valid in law because of the aforestated, inherent defects with which they are shown to suffer. The abovestated and discussed distinguishable features of this case will not attract applicability of the observations of this Court made in Ganapathi Narayan v. Shivaram Narayan Bhat (1996 AIHC 5609) (Kant) supra, to the effect that the termination order of the Managing Committee of the Temple paised against its Archak, has to be presumed as a valid order until the plaintiff Archak therein proves it otherwise, which were pressed into service by Mr. Vijayashankar to uphold the impugned orders. Among the eight functions of Parupatyagar listed at paragraph 5 of the plaint, only two functions are specifically denied by D-1 at paragraph 8 of its written statement, and they are that the Parupatyagar is an officer in charge of the Veeranarayana Temple; and that he is in custody of all the keys including Garbhagudi of Veeranarayana Temple, which are indicated at Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph 5 of the plaint. The other functions of Parupatyagar stated at Sub-clauses (iii) to (viii) of plaint paragraph 5 are not so specifically denied. In turn, it is also not stated by the defendants as to what are the specific functions and duties of Parupatyagar, in contrast to his functions stated in Sub-clauses (iii) to (viii) of plaint paragraph 5. Therefore, one position which emerges fairly clear from the pleadings is that these functions listed at Sub-clauses (iii) to (viii) of plaint paragraph 5 are the normal functions of Parupatyagar of D-1 Trust Temple. So, the Court below ought to have safely held that the functions and duties stated at Sub-clauses (iii) to (viii) at paragraph 5 of the plaint are the undisputed functions of the Parupatyagar of the defendant temple.