Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The High Court has upheld the plea raised by the State against the competence of Ghanshyamlalji's petition. We ought to add that the State had contended that the Tilkayat's case about the character of the temple was also a mixed question of fact and law and so, it could not be properly tried in writ proceedings. The High Court, however', held that it would be 'inexpedient to adopt a technical attitude in this matter and it allowed the merits of the dispute to be tried before it on the assurance given by the learned counsel appearing for the Tilkayat that the character of the property should be dealt with on the documentary evidence adduced by him. Considering the documentary evidence, the High Court came to the conclusion that the temple is a public temple. It examined the several Firmans and Sanads on which reliance was placed by the Tilkayat and it thought that the said grants supported the plea of the State that the temple was not the private temple of the Tilkayat. It has, however, found that the Tilkayat is a spiritual head of the Denomination as well as the spiritual head of the temple of Shrinathji. He alone is entitled to perform 'Seva' and the other religious functions of the temple. In its opinion, the two minor idols of Navnit Priyaji and Madan Mohanlalji were the private idols of the Tilkayat and so, that part of the definition which included them within the temple of Shrinathji was struck down as invalid. In this connection, the High Court has very strongly relied on the Firman issued by the Maharana of Udaipur on December 31, 1934, and it has observed that this Firman clearly established the fact that the temple was a public temple, that the Tilkayat was no more than a Custodian, Manager and Trustee of the property belonging to the temple and that the State had the absolute right to supervise that the property dedicated to the shrine was used for legitimate purposes of the shrine. Having found that the Tilkayat was the head of the denomination and the head priest of the temple, the High Court conceded in his favour the right of residence, the right to distribute Prasad and the right to conduct or supervise the worship and the. performance of the Seva in the temple. In the light of these rights the High Court held that the Tilkayat had a beneficial interest in the properties of the temple and as such, was entitled to contend that the said rights were protected under Art. 19 (1) (f) and could not be contravened by the Legislature. The High Court then examined the relevant provisions of the Act and held that, on the whole, the major operative provisions of the Act did not contravene the fundamental rights of the Tilkayat under Art. 19 (1) (f); ss. 16, s. 28, sub-ss. (2) and (3), s. 30 (2) (a), ss. 36 & 37, however, did contravene the Tilkayat's fundamental rights according to the High Court, and so, the said sections and the part of the definition of 'temple' in s. 2 (viii) were struck down by the High Court as ultra vires.The plea that the fundamental rights under Art.25 (1) and Art. 26 (b) and

In course of time, Vallabha was succeeded by his son Vithalnathji who was both in learning and in saintly character a worthy son of a worthy father. Withalnath bad great organising capacity and his work was actuated by missionary zeal. In the denomination, Vallabha is described as Achilles or Maha Prabhuji and Vithalnath is described as Gosain or Goswamin. It is said that Vithalnath removed the idol of Shrinathji to another temple which had been built by him. It is not known whether any idol was installed in the earlier temple. Vithalnath lived luring the period of Akbar when the political atmosphere in the country in Northern India was actuated by a spirit of tolerance. It appears that Akbar heard about the saintly reputation of Vithalnath and issued a Firman granting land in Mowza of Jatipura to Vithalnathji in order to build buildings, gardens, cowsheds and workshops for the temple of Govardhannathji This Firman was issued in 1593 A.D. Later, Emperor Shahajahan also issued another Firman on October 2, 1633, which shows that some land was being granted by the Emperor for the use and expenses of Thakilrdwara exempt from payment of dues. Goswami Vithalnath had seven sons. The tradition of the denomination believes that besides the idol of Shrinathji Vithalnathji received from his father (1) Bhai Manilal C. Parekh's 'A Religion of Grace'.

Then the learned' Attorney-General contended that in judging about the effect of this Firman we should not ignore the background of events which necessitated its issue. Damodarlalji had been deposed by Maharana and it was more in anger that the Firman was issued to meet the challenge of the said incident. Damodarlalji had filed certainsuits in the Bombay High Court and it appeared as if a doubt would arise in the minds of the followers and devotees of the temple as to whether the deposition of Damodarlalji was valid or not. It was with a view to meet this specific particular situation that the Firman was issued and so, it need not be treated as a law binding for all times. In our opinion, this argument is clearly misconceived. Whatever may be the genesis of the Firman and whatever may be the nature of the mischief which it was intended to redress, the words used in the Firman are clear and as provisions contained in a statute they must be given full effect. There can be little doubt that after this Firman was issued, it 'would not be open to anyone to contend that the Shrinathii temple was a private temple belonging to the Tilkayat Maharaj of the day. This law declares that it has always been and would always be a public temple. The validity of this law was not then and is not now open to any challenge when it seeks to declare that the temple in question has always been a public temple. We have already seen that the original grants amply bear out the recital in cl. 1 of the Firman about the character of this temple. The fIrman then clearly provides that the TilkayaT Maharaj is merely a Custodian, Manager and Trustee of the said property and that finally determines the nature of the office held by the Tilkayat Maharaj. He can claim no better and no higher rights after the Firman was issued. The said clause also declares that the Darbar has absolute right to see to it that the property is used for legitimate purpose of the shrine. This again is an assertion which is validly made to assert the sovereign's rights to supervise the administration of public charity. Clause 2 lays down the absolute right of the Darbar to depose the Tilkayat and to disqualify anyone from claiming the succession to the Gaddi. It shows that succession to the Gaddi and continuing in the office of the Tilkayat are wholly dependent on the discretion of the Darbar. The Right of the Darbar to depose the Tilkayat and to recognise a successor or not is described by this clause as absolute. The third and the fourth clauses are consistent with the first two clauses. Reading this Firman as a whole, there can be no doubt that under the law of Udaipur, this temple was held to be a public temple and the Tilkayat was held to be no more than the Custodian, Manager and Trustee of the property belonging to the said temple. It is on the basis of this law that the vires of the Act must inevitably be determined. The learned Attorney General has invited our attention to some decisions in which the temples of this cult were held to be private temples. 'We would now very briefly refer to these decisions before we proceed to deal with the other points raised in the present appeals. In Gossamee Sree Greedhareejee v Rumanlolljee Gossantee, (1), the Privy Council held that when the worship of a Thakoor has been (1)16 1. A. 137.

ship at the temple apart from the secular part of the administration of the temple properties. Broadly .stated, the former will be carried out according to the traditional usage and custom and the latter according to the provisions of the Act.

On behalf of the Tilkayat, the main contention which has been raised before us by the learned Attorney-General is that his right of property has been infringed under Art. 19 (1) (f) and Mr. Pathak has added that the relevant provisions infringed the Tilkayat's rights under Art. 31 (2) of the Constitution. As we have already indicated, this latter contention is raised in the writ petition filed by the Tilkayat in this Court. Now in deciding the validity of these contentions it is necessary to revert to the Firman issued by the Rana of Udaipur in 1934, because the rights of the Tilkayat have to be judged in the light of the said Firman. We have already noticed that the said Firman clearly declares that the Tilkayat is merely a Custodian, Manager and Trustee of the property of the shrine Shrinathji and that the Udaipur Darbar has the absolute right to supervise that the property dedicated to the shrine is used for legitimate purpose of the shrine. Having regard to the unam biguous and emphatic words used in clause 1 of the Firman and having regard to other drastic provisions contained in its remaining clauses, we are inclined to think that this Firman made the Tilkayat for the time being a Custodian, Manager and Trustee, and nothing more. As a Custodian or Manager, he had the right to manage the properties of the temple, subject, of course, to the overall supervision of the Darbar, the right of the Darbar in that behalf being absolute. He was also a Trustee of the said property and the word "'trustee" in the context must mean trustee in the technical legal sense. In other words, it is not open to the Tilkayat to claim that he has rights of a Mahant or a Shebait; his rights are now defined and he cannot claim any higher rights after the Firman was issued. There can be no doubt that the right to have the custody of the property such as the Custodian has, or the right to manage the property such as the Manger possesses, or the right to administer the trust property for the benefit of the beneficiary which the Trustee can do, cannot be regarded as a right to property under Art. 19 (1)(f) and for the same reason, it does not constitute property under Art. 31(2). If it is held that the Tilkayat was no more than a Custodian, Manager and Trustee properly so called, there can be no doubt that he is not entitled to rely either on Art. 19(1)(f) or on Art. 31(2). Therefore, on this construction of clause 1 of the Firman, the short answer to the pleas raised by the Tilkayat under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31(2) is that the rights such as he possesses under the said clause cannot attract Art. 19(1)(f) or Art. 31(2).