Case Note & Summary
The suit was filed in 1947 by the deity Thakur Janki Ballabhji Maharaj, installed in a temple at Brindaban, Uttar Pradesh, acting through its manager L. Tulsiram, an authorised agent of the erstwhile Bharatpur State, against Ramchand, the pujari of the temple. The plaint alleged that the Ruler of Bharatpur had built the temple, installed the idol, and dedicated the temple to the deity. Ramchand had succeeded the originally appointed priest but had mismanaged and misappropriated the temple properties, failed to perform the seva puja, constructed residential buildings on the temple premises, used the temple as a lodging house for pilgrims, and asserted a proprietary title over the properties. The plaintiffs sought a decree for possession of the temple and its properties and an account of the realisations of the estate of the deity. Ramchand contested, denying that the Ruler built the temple and claiming that the temple was donated to his ancestor, and that he was the manager and proprietor. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the Ruler of Bharatpur had no connection with the construction of the temple or the installation of the idol. On appeal, the High Court of Allahabad reversed the trial court's decree, holding that the defendant had committed acts of mismanagement and misappropriation, rendering him unfit to remain as pujari, and decreed possession and an injunction against him. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The central legal issues were whether the suit required sanction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether the State had sufficient interest to maintain the suit on behalf of the deity, and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to frame a scheme for management of a private temple trust. The appellant argued that the suit was of the nature of a suit under Section 92 and therefore needed the Advocate General's sanction, and that the State was not the shebait or settlor. The respondent countered that the temple was not a public trust, so Section 92 did not apply, and that the State, as a large donor, had a substantial interest to sue on behalf of the deity. The Supreme Court noted that it was common ground that the temple property was not public trust property. The court held that since the suit was filed by the deity against the person in management, it was not a suit under Section 92, and the sanction of the Advocate General was not required. The court further found that the defendant had committed mismanagement and misappropriation, had set up a personal title to the temple properties, and was unfit to remain as pujari. Even if it was not proved that the Ruler built the temple, the State of Bharatpur had made large donations and therefore had a substantial interest to protect the deity's property. On the question of scheme, the court held that civil courts have jurisdiction to frame a scheme for management of a private temple, relying on precedents. Exercising powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, the court directed the trial court to frame a scheme for management of the temple, appoint a manager, take accounts from the defendant, and prevent private use of the properties, consistent with the law on private religious endowments in Uttar Pradesh. The appeal was dismissed with costs, subject to the modification regarding the framing of a scheme.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Suits by Deity - Section 92 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Suit by deity against person in management for mismanagement of private trust does not attract Section 92 and no sanction of Advocate General is required. The suit was filed by the deity through its manager against the pujari. The High Court held the property was not of a public trust; thus, Section 92 did not apply. Held that the suit was maintainable without sanction (pp. 636-637). B) Trust and Temple Law - Right to Sue on Behalf of Deity - A person with substantial interest, such as a donor, can maintain a suit on behalf of the deity to protect its property. The Ruler of Bharatpur had made large donations and thus had sufficient interest to sue. Held that the State had locus standi (p. 637). C) Temple Management - Removal of Pujari/Temple Manager - Acts of mismanagement and misappropriation, including setting up personal title to temple properties and converting them to own use, render the manager/pujari unfit. Held that the defendant Ramchand committed such acts and was not fit to remain as pujari (p. 637). D) Civil Procedure - Order 41 Rule 33 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Framing of Scheme for Private Temple - Civil courts have jurisdiction to frame a scheme for management of a temple even if it is not a public trust. The court directed framing of a scheme for management, appointment of a manager, accounts from defendant, and prevention of private use of temple properties. Held that the Court may frame a scheme consistent with law relating to private religious endowments (pp. 637-638).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit by a deity against a pujari for possession and accounts of temple properties of a private trust requires sanction under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure; whether the Ruler of Bharatpur/State had sufficient interest to maintain the suit; whether the civil court has jurisdiction to frame a scheme for management of a private trust under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs; decree of High Court modified to direct trial court to frame scheme for management of temple, appoint manager, take accounts from defendant, and prevent private use of temple properties, consistent with law on private religious endowments in U.P.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 92 CPC not applicable to suit by deity against person in management for mismanagement of private trust
- Order 41 Rule 33 CPC empowers civil court to frame scheme for management of private temple
- Worshipper with sufficient interest can sue on behalf of deity.
