Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit is one under Order 21, Rule 63, C.P.C. (as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 104 of 1976) for a declaration that the six items of properties mentioned in the plaint belonged to deceased Goswamy Shri Vallabhlalji Maharaj and the properties are liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree in summary Suit No. 1108/1954 on the original side of the Bombay High Court.

2. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of the decree-holder Shri Chaturbbai Maganbhai Patel. Ext. A12 dated 21-1-1957 is the decree in summary Suit No. 1108/54 for recovery of Rs. 3,00,811.12 from the defendant Goswamy Vallabhlalji Maharaj. The judgment-debtor late Goswami Vallabhlalji Maharaj (hereinafter referred to as Vallabhlalji) died on 16-7-1957. E. P. No. 1/1961 was therefore tiled against his widow and legal representative, who is the sole defendant in the suit. The defendant raised objection to the execution of the decree against the suit properties as one of the trustees of Goswamy Shri Chimanlalji Ghanashyamlalji Maharaj Trust contending that the properties attached in E. P. 1/1961 belonged to the Trust and are not individual or private properties of the judgment-debtor. The claim put forward by the respondent in the E. P. was enquired into by the execution Court and that Court by Ext. 81 order dated 17-12-1966 upheld the claim on the finding that the properties belonged to the Trust aforesaid. This order of the execution Court was confirmed by this Court in revision as per Ext. 83 order dated 5-3-1970. The present suit was filed on 3-10-1970 for the declaration aforesaid to enable the legal representatives of the decree-holder to execute the decree by attachment and sale of the plaint schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs the properties are the separate and individual properties of deceased Vallabblalji, the trust referred to in Ext. 81 order constituted by the Will of Goswamy Shri Ghana-shyamlalji Maharaj (hereinafter referred to as Ghanashamlalji) does not take in the plaint schedule properties, the suit O.S. 1423/1935 on the original side of the Bombay High Court purported to have been tiled by the idols in the Mandir belonging to the trust represented by the next friend the decree-holder therein and the scheme framed in pursuance to the decree are all not binding on the suit properties, the suit properties had been dealt with by the judgment-debtor Vallabhlalji as properties belonging to him and as the legal representative of the judgment-debtor, the defendant is precluded from raising the contention that the properties belong to a Trust and not to the judgment-debtor.

On the finding of mismanagement by the 1st defendant, be was directed to be removed from management and a scheme was directed to be framed for proper administration and management of the Trust-estate. The schedule of Ext. B-12 plaint does not con-lain the Calicut properties. But Ext. B-16 decree takes in also the Calicut properties apparently included by way of amendment of the plaint. In Ext. B-16 decree, the Calicut properties arc described as the lands and buildings at Calicut known as Maharaj's Mandir. Ext. B-17 dated 1-2-1943 is the scheme of administration of the trust framed in pursuance to Ext. B-16 decree. Exhibit B-17 also takes in the lands and buildings at Calicut known as Maharaja's Mandir. Clause (1) of the Scheme declares that the properties mentioned in the list attached to the scheme with all additions and accretions thereto are the trust properties of the plaintiffs namely the deities of Thakoreji and the properties are referred to in the scheme as "The Trust Estate". Clause (2) constitutes a Board of five Trustees of whom the third trustee is Seth Chaturbhai Mangalbhai Patel the decree-holder in O.S. No. 1108 of 1954. Clause (3) specifically stales that the Trust-Estates shall vest in the said Trustees and their successors who may be appointed from time to time. Clauses (4) and (5) of Ext. B-17 make provision for the convolution of a committee for the day-to-day management of the temples attached to the Trust. The committee consists of two members of whom No. 1 is the judgment-debtor Vallabhlalji and No. 2 is Umedbhai Chaturbhai Patel, the 1st plaintiff herein and one of the legal representatives of the decree-holder. As per Clause (6) of Ext. B-17 the control regarding religious rites and ceremonies is to vest in the 1st defendant Vallabhlalji as the Mukhya adhikari, with right to appoint assistants, nominees and servants. Sub-clause (c) of Clause (8) provides that the surplus income after defraying and incurring the above expenditure is to be appropriated by the Mukhya Adhikari as emoluments to maintain the dignity of his office. Clause (9) containing various sub-clauses makes detailed provision relating to the rights of the Trustees appointed under the Scheme. Sub-clause (j) of Clause (9) specifically states that the Trustees shall have full power as if they are owners of the Trust Estate and are authorised to file suits on behalf of the idols and deities. Clause (11) makes provision for succession to the office of the Mukhya Adhikari and states that on the death of the then Mukhya Adhikari his successors to the Ciadi from generation to generation shall be the first member of the committee referred to in Clause (5). Ext. B-15 judgment was confirmed by Ext. B-25 judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 19-2-1965 (sic).

14. Much reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellants on Exts. A-5, A-7 and A-9. Ext. A-5 is the plaint in O.S. No. 660/1949 on the original side of the Madras High Court. It was a suit filed by the judgment-debtor Vallabhlalji for a declaration that the proceedings initiated by the Commissioners under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1927 for the levy of contribution under the Act from the properties attached to the Mandir at Calicut were without jurisdiction and for an injunction restraining the Commissioners from proceeding with an enquiry into the question as to whether the Mandir in question is a public temple liable to pay contribution under the Act. Ext. A-5 refers to an earlier decision of the Commissioners dated 25-5-1936 whereby they had held that the Mandir at Calicut and the properties attached thereto do not constitute a Public Trust and are not therefore liable to any levy under the Madras Act. In Ext. A-7 judgment Chandra Reddy, J., as he then was, held that the Commissioners under the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act had no jurisdiction to review their earlier decision and impose a levy of contribution under the Act on the properties involved in that suit.