Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 370 of 1956. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 25, 1955, of the former Nagpur High Court, in Civil Revision No. 333 of 1954.

A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Shankar Anand and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.

W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondents.

1961. February 23. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Nagpur High Court. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these: There is an ancient temple of Balaji at Deolgaon Raja in the Buldana District. Before 1866 the management of the temple was in the hands of a family bearing the name of Lad. A suit was filed in 1866 with respect to this temple by Raje Mansingh Rao under the guardianship of his mother for a declaration that the temple was his property. The defendants in that suit were certain pujaris. The suit was decreed by the first court but on appeal it was held that the temple was not the private property of the Raja but was an endowment for the public founded by the ancestors of the Raja and that the Raja was entitled as against the pujaris to the possession and control of the institution. A receiver was appointed during the minority of the Raja but in due course the Raja took over the direct management of the temple. In 1872 it seems that there was some dispute between the Raja and the pujaris whose offices were also hereditary; and an agreement was arrived at between them. By this agreement it was provided that any offerings up to Rs. 5/- would go to the pujaris who were to defray the expenses of dhoop, deep and neivedya from this amount keeping the balance to themselves. There were also certain provisions in the agreement as to offerings in kind. The agreement also provided for other matters relating to worship and imposed certain duties on the pujaris. Finally, it provided that the parties should carry on all the duties stated in the agreement and other duties besides them as before according to the usual wahiwat and that earnings would be taken as stated in the agreement arid proper arrangement of expenses would be kept and the pujaris would take all possible care not to take more than what was fixed in the agreement. This agreement seems to have held the field thereafter till we come to 1904. It seems that there was dissatisfaction with the management of this temple by Raje Anandrao and in consequence a suit was filed after obtaining permission of the Advocate-General in February, 1904, for framing a scheme for the management of the temple. This suit was finally decided on April 29, 1916, by the Additional Judicial Commissioners. They set aside the order of the trial court for the removal of Raje Anandrao from the management by declaring that the right to manage the affairs of the shrine which was an office was hereditary in the family of the Raja; but they further held that a scheme should be framed providing-

In consequence the matter went back to the District Judge who framed a, scheme on February 16,1918, for the management of the temple. This scheme was later substituted by another scheme dated November 25, 1926. Finally, on October 16, 1935, another scheme was framed in substitution of that framed in 1926. It may be mentioned that the pujaris as such were not parties to this suit in which the scheme was framed, though they would be as much bound by it as members of the worshipping public as the parties to it. It seems that about that time there was another suit pending in the court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, 11 Class, Buldana, between the appellant and the pujaris. That suit was decided on April 30, 1936, and it was held therein that the agreement of 1872 which was binding on the appellant recognised that the office of pujari was hereditary. It was also held that the trustee (namely, the Raja) was entitled to control the pujaris in the exercise of their rights and to see, that they performed their duties properly. In other words it was held that the pujaris were entitled to retain their office during good behaviour. It was also held that the hereditary nature of their right had not invested them with any immunity from all control and they were not entitled to act with impunity and yet retain their office. It was further held that they could not establish a right to enjoy the fruits of their office though absolutely incompetent to do so. Further it was held that the power of dismissal in the event of misbehaviour undoubtedly belonged to the Raja but that it should not be lightly exercised and should be subject to the control of the District Judge. Finally it was made clear that the Raja had no right to dispose of any part of the income of the pujaris nor had he any right to interfere in matters of succession amongst them. The office of pujari was thus held to be here-ditable unless there was misconduct or misbehaviour which caused forfeiture. A declaratory decree was therefore passed to the effect that the pujaris who were defendants in that suit were holding hereditary office of the pujaris of Shree Balasaheb Sansthan and that they were in the discharge of their duties subject to the control of the plaintiff (namely, the Raja) and they were bound to respect his authority and rightful orders and that they held their office subject to good behaviour.

Next we come to the year 1953. It seems that there was some trouble in the temple and consequently the District Judge visited the place on November 30, 1953. At that time it was agreed that a Commissioner with wide terms of reference be appointed to investigate the working of the. temple vis-a- vis the pujaris, the trustee and the general public and he should report how far the present scheme was working, what were the defects and shortcomings and what new proposals or alterations in the scheme and in the agreement of 1872 were necessary in the light of the working till then and the changed circumstances. Many of the pujaris-respondents who were present on that date were agreeable to this course. Eventually, the Commissioner reported to the District Judge and objections were called to that report. The matter was then gone into and the District Judge passed an order on, April 12, 1954, by which he revised the scheme which had been in force since 1935.

This clause again deals with the administration of the temple. We have already referred to the decision in the suit of 1935 between the appellant and the pujaris- respondents. In that suit it was made clear that the pujaris in the discharge of their duties were subject to the control of Raje Anandrao and were bound to respect his authority and rightful orders and that they held their office subject to good behaviour. It is this decision inter parties which is being carried out in cl. (b), which has been added in the revised scheme. The power of control which the Raja has over the pujaris in the discharge of their duties implies that be is the person to grant them leave or fine% or punish them for misconduct, if they do not perform their duties regularly and properly. Learned counsel for the respondents feels however that this power to punish might be misused by the Raja, for it is uncontrolled, unlike the power to dismiss which could only be exercised with the previous sanction of the District Judge. The clause as it stands therefore does not in any way affect the private rights of the pujaris and does not go beyond what was decided in the suit between them and the appellant. It concerns the administration of the temple and therefore it was within the jurisdiction of the District Judge to insert it in the scheme when revising it. At the same time there may be something in the apprehension entertained by the pujaris that the power to punish may be abused. We therefore think that in this clause a further sentence should be added to the following effect:-