CHARITY COMMISSIONER Vs. TEJENDRAPRASADJI DEVENDRAPRASADJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The present appeal filed by the Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, is against the judgment and order passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 3093 of 1975 dated 31-7-1979, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to declare and decreed that the sanction of Rs. 51,000/- by the Committee for the purpose of marriage expenses of the daughter of the Acharya (plaintiffs sister Shri Rajendra Kunverben) by its Resolution No. 1 dated 21-1-1965 as modified by its Resolution No. 5 dated 27-12-1966 is legal and valid and within the powers of the Committee, under Clause 16, sub-clause (1) of the Scheme for the management of the Trust of Swaminarayan Temple, Ahmedabad. The learned Judge was further pleased to declare that the costs of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 learned Charity Commissioner and the defendant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 to be provided for from the Trust. Rest of the defendants to bear their costs.

(2.) . The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under : The predecessor of the present plaintiff viz. Shri Devendraprasadji Vasudevprasadji became the Acharya in the year 1936. He wanted to perform the marriage of his son Shri Tejendraprasadji. He, therefore, wrote a letter dated 17-11-1964 to the Committee which was working under the Scheme framed by the Bombay High Court for the sanction of reasonable amount of expenses for the marriage occasions of the present plaintiff as well as plaintiffs sister. Thereupon, by resolution dated 21-1-1965 Ex. 45, the Committee sanctioned Rs. 91.000/- for the marriage expenses of the plaintiffs sister in addition to the amount received in the form of chandla (gift in the form of money). The then learned Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State, objected to this resolution and informed the plaintiffs father by letter dated 25-1-1965 not to take the sanctioned amount from the temple. The plaintiffs father Devendraprasadji Vasudevprasadji wrote a letter dated 15-12-1966 to the Committee with an idea of modification and clarification for net sanction of marriage expenses of the plaintiff and his sister. The Committee thereupon reconsidered the previous resolution dated 21-1-1965 and passed a resolution No. 5 dated 27-12-1966 sanctioning the amount of Rs. 91.000/- and Rs. 51,000/- for marriage expenses respectively of the plaintiff and his sister, and the amount received in cash by chandla was resolved to be credited to the temple. It appears that this resolution was not objected by the then learned Charity Commissioner. But, this resolution could not be given effect as the plaintiffs marriage could not be performed on account of unavoidable circumstances and his sister's marriage was performed on 12-5-1969. The plaintiffs father had to incur expenses of Rs. 1,13,000/- and the amount of Rs. 35.869/- received by way of chandla was credited to the temple as per the said resolution. However, as the amount sanctioned was Rs. 51,0007- for the marriage expenses of plaintiffs sister, the plaintiffs father had to write a letter dated 20-7-1967 to the Committee for sanction of additional expenses. The Committee examined the account and ultimately decided to pass necessary resolution in the meeting of the Committee which was to be held on 10-10-1967. In the meantime, the learned Charity Commissioner wrote a letter dated 6-10-1967 to the father of the plaintiff and asked him to pay the additional amount of marriage expenses of his daughter to the temple and similarly issued orders by his letter dated 6-10-1967 to all the members of the Committee not to sanction the additional amount. It was as a result of the demand for the payment of additional expenses i.e., expenses more than Rs. 51,000/-, that the learned Charity Commissioner had written such a letter, and consequently, the Committee vide resolution dated 10-10-1967 postponed the matter, keeping the same in abeyance. Thereafter, there was some correspondence between plaintiffs father and learned Charity Commissioner, as a result of which, by notice dated 3-5-1968 bearing Outward No. 9040/1868, asked the father of the plaintiff to apply to the Court for direction as to whether the expenses of the marriage of his daughter was coming within the scope or purview of the Clause 16(1) of the Scheme. The plaintiffs father, therefore, preferred and filed Misc. Civil Appln. No. 245 of 1968 to the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for the opinion and or directions in the matter. It appears that pending the application, the plaintiffs father died on 12th October, 1969 and the plaintiff had joined in the said application as the applicant. In the said application, the city civil Court opined on 18-7-1975 that the provision of marriage expenses was not covered by clause 16(1) of the Scheme and it was directed that the plaintiff should take chandla amount and should return the marriage expenses incurred from the Trust. It is the case of the plaintiff that the opinion rendered by the city civil Court is not a decision in a regular matter, but is merely an opinion in a summary proceedings, and therefore, there is no bar to file a civil suit. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit for a declaratory decree that the resolutions seeking an amount of Rs. 51.000/- paid by the committee for the purpose of marriage expenditure of the daughter of the deceased Acharya Shri Devendraprasadji Vasudevprasadji, by its resolution No. 1 dated 21-1-1965 and reaffirmed by its resolution No. 5 dated 27-12-1966 are in consonance with and within the powers of the Committee vide Clause 16(1) for the management of the properties pertaining to the Swaminarayan Temple at Ahmedabad and the temples subordinate thereto framed by the Bombay High Court by judgment dated 10-10-1934.

(3.) . Learned Charity Commissioner, defendant No. 1 filed the written statement at Ex. 31. It was, inter alia, contended by him that in view of Civil Suit No. 533 of 1962 before the city civil Court, Ahmedabad where clause 16 is inter alia required to be interpreted, this suit deserves to be stayed under Sec. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the matter is also directed and substantively an issue in the previous suit. It was further contended that in view of the decision in Misc. Appl. No. 245 of 1968 there is a bar of res judicata in the suit. The learned Charity Commissioner also denied the allegations of the plaintiff with regard to the interpretation of Clause 16 of the Scheme. In substance, the learned Charity Commissioner contended that the plaintiff's suit is not maintainable at law.