Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between two sects of Jain religion, the Digambri and Swetambri, over the right to worship the idol of Adeshwarji in the temple at Paroli. The plaintiffs (respondents 1 to 9) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that the temple and idol were consecrated according to Digambri tenets and that they had been performing Darshan, Prakshal, and Poojan without interference. They alleged that in December 1949, the defendants attempted to convert the idol to Swetambri by putting artificial eyes (Chakshus), and later intended to erect Dhwajadand, put Kalash, enclose the idol with doors and locks, and alter its appearance. The Trial Court decreed the suit, and the District Judge in appeal confirmed the decree. The High Court affirmed the decree and fixed three hours per day for Digambri worship. The defendants (appellants) appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The appellants contended that the dispute was not of a civil nature and hence no civil suit lay; that the trial court judgment was vitiated because the judge relied on his own inspection rather than evidence; that injunction could not be granted without establishing ownership of the temple or that the idol belonged to Digambri sect; and that the plaintiffs failed to prove the idol was Digambri. The respondents argued that the temple was constructed and idol consecrated by Digambris, they had continuously worshipped according to their tenets, and the defendants had wrongfully attempted to convert the idol. The Supreme Court held that the suit was maintainable under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because the right to worship is a civil right and the dispute affected the rights of worship, not merely rites and rituals. The Court found that the trial court's judgment was not vitiated by the site inspection because the evidence led by the plaintiffs appeared correct and the inspection notes were made with advocates present; thus the findings were based on both evidence and inspection. The concurrent findings of the lower courts that the idol was 'Nirkar' (naked) without Chakshus, Mukat, Armlet, Dhwajadand or Kalash established that the idol was consecrated by Digambris. The Court noted that Digambris will not worship an idol with Chakshus, clothes, or Mukat, while Swetambris can worship a Digambri idol without these; therefore, both sects could worship the same idol. Once the right of worship of Digambris was established, they were entitled to an injunction to prevent interference by alterations. The High Court's direction extending worship time from one hour to three hours was not unreasonable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the injunction.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Suit - Right of worship of a religious idol is a civil right and suit for its protection is maintainable under Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The dispute between Digambri and Swetambri Jain sects over right to worship and prevent alterations to idol is not merely religious ritual but affects civil rights; hence civil suit lies - Held that the suit for declaration and injunction to protect worship rights is maintainable (Pages 843 B). B) Evidence - Judicial Inspection - Trial court's finding not vitiated solely because it relied on site inspection when evidence was also considered - The trial judge observed that evidence of plaintiffs appeared correct and the inspection notes were made with advocates present; hence findings based on both evidence and inspection - Held that concurrent findings based on evidence and inspection are valid (Pages 844 G-845 C). C) Religious Endowments - Right to Worship - Possibility of both sects worshipping a Digambri idol - Digambris will not worship an idol with Chakshus, clothes, or Mukat, while Swetambris can worship a Digambri idol without these; hence both sects can worship - Court held that once right of Digambris established, they are entitled to injunction to prevent interference by alterations (Pages 846 E). D) Injunction - Permanent Injunction - Grant of injunction to prevent alteration of idol and temple - The defendants attempted to put Chakshus, Dhwajadand, Kalash, and enclose idol, which would interfere with Digambri worship; injunction was proper - Held that injunction restraining alterations is justified to protect religious rights (Pages 848 A-B).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for declaration and injunction regarding right of worship of a religious idol is of a civil nature and maintainable under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; whether the trial court judgment was vitiated because the trial judge based his findings on his own inspection rather than evidence; whether the plaintiffs were required to establish ownership of the temple or that the idol belonged to the Digambri sect before obtaining an injunction; whether the plaintiffs proved that the idol was a Digambri idol and had a right to worship.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgments of the lower courts. It held that the suit was maintainable under Section 9 CPC, that the trial court's findings were based on evidence as well as inspection, that the concurrent findings that the idol was 'Nirkar' (naked) without Chakshus, Mukat, Armlet, Dhwajadand or Kalash established it was consecrated by Digambris, and that both sects could worship such an idol. The High Court's direction extending worship time from one hour to three hours was not unreasonable. The permanent injunction granted by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court was upheld.
Law Points
- Right to worship is a civil right
- suit for protection of worship rights is maintainable under Section 9 CPC
- both Digambri and Swetambri can worship a Digambri idol
- concurrent findings based on evidence and inspection are valid
- permanent injunction can be granted to prevent interference with religious rights
