Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a long-standing dispute between the Waghmare family, hereditary worshippers known as Guravs, of the Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan at Alandi, and the trustees of the Sansthan. The Guravs claimed hereditary rights of worship and management, while the trustees treated them as servants subject to dismissal. The conflict intensified in 1911 when the trustees dismissed eleven Guravs for gross misconduct. The dismissed Guravs filed Suit No. 485 of 1911 asserting ownership of the temple, but the trial court dismissed that suit on April 20, 1917, and the High Court dismissed the appeals on August 3, 1921, leaving open their rights as hereditary worshippers. Instead of pursuing a scheme suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure as suggested by the High Court, the Guravs forcibly took possession of the temple on July 25, 1922. The trustees filed Suit No. 1075 of 1922 under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and obtained a decree on November 4, 1922, resulting in the Guravs' dispossession on November 16, 1922. Some Guravs then filed Suit No. 19 of 1922, which was dismissed by the District Court on April 25, 1927, and that dismissal was affirmed by the High Court on June 20, 1933, on the ground that the suit was not properly constituted under Section 92. Thereafter, a properly constituted scheme suit, No. 7 of 1934, was filed, and while it was pending, the present four suits (Nos. 1202 of 1933, 392 of 1935, 875 of 1936, and 900 of 1937) were filed by different branches of the Waghmare family for declaration of their rights as hereditary servants, permanent injunction restraining the trustees from obstructing them, and accounts. The trial court decreed these suits in 1942, but the Bombay High Court allowed the trustees' appeals, holding the suits barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, with the cause of action arising either on the filing of the Section 9 suit or on the date of its decree, and that Section 23 had no application. In the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that Article 124 applied, or if Article 120 applied, Section 23 saved limitation. The Supreme Court rejected these contentions. It held that Article 124 applies only to suits where the cause of action is wrongful dispossession of the plaintiff and adverse possession by the defendant in respect of a hereditary office, and the contest is usually between rival claimants to that office, not between such claimants and trustees. The provision in column 3 of Article 124 could not be ignored. The Court approved the Madras view in Thathachariar v. Singarachariar and distinguished other cases. On Section 23, the Court held that it refers to a continuing wrong, not a continuing right. A continuing wrong creates a source of continuing injury, whereas a completed injury, even if it causes continuing damage, is not a continuing wrong. The ouster of the Guravs resulting from the decree in the Section 9 suit was a completed injury at the date of ouster; therefore, Section 23 did not apply. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeals.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Hereditary Office - Applicability of Article 124 - Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Article 124 - The suit by hereditary worshippers against trustees for declaration of their rights as hereditary servants and injunction was not governed by Article 124, which applies only where the cause of action is wrongful dispossession of the plaintiff and adverse possession by the defendant in respect of the hereditary office, and contest usually is between rival claimants to the office, not between claimants and trustees; the provision of column 3 of Article 124 cannot be ignored. Held that High Court rightly held Article 120, not Article 124, applied. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Limitation - Continuing Wrong - Section 23 - Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Section 23 - Section 23 refers to a continuing wrong, not a continuing right; a continuing wrong creates a source of continuing injury as opposed to one that was complete. The ouster of the appellants resulting from the decree in the Section 9 suit was a completed injury at the date of ouster, and subsequent continuance of dispossession did not make it a continuing wrong. Held that Section 23 had no application to save limitation; suits were barred under Article 120. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suits by hereditary worshippers for declaration and injunction were governed by Article 124 or Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and whether Section 23 of the Act applied to save limitation on the ground of continuing wrong.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeals Nos. 220 to 223 of 1953, affirming the High Court's decision that the suits were barred by limitation under Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. Article 124 did not apply, and Section 23 had no application. The High Court's judgment and decrees dated April 14, 1943, were upheld.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Article 124 applies only to suits for possession of hereditary office based on wrongful dispossession and adverse possession by rival claimant
- Article 120 applies to suits for declaration of hereditary rights against trustees
- Section 23 refers to continuing wrong
- not continuing right
- a completed injury is not a continuing wrong
- cause of action under Article 120 accrues on denial of right or ouster.
