MAGANBHAI MADHABHAI Vs. AMBALAL BHIKHABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from order has been brought to this Court presumably under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Code by the Original defendants Nos. 5 6 7 and 8 being aggrieved by the order of interim injunction granted by the learned Joint District Judge Nadiad in proceedings that had come to be registered with his Court as the Regular Civil Suit No. 3 of 1980. The interim injunction that was granted by the learned Judge was in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 the original plaintiffs and it reads as follows:

(2.) A few facts require to be noted closely in order to fully comprehend the controversy. There is the famous temple of Laxminarayan Dev at Vadtal in Kheda district. The said temple belongs to the Swaminarayan sect which was founded by Sahajanand Swamy. He had his influence over his various disciplines spread over almost all the parts of India and it appears that various temples were established in different parts of the country. In order to have efficient management of the sect founded by him and also of the system established by him he had divided the country into two divisions known as Dioceses. India was therefore divided into two divisions known as the Northern Diocese with Ahmedabad as its principal seat and the Southern Diocese with its principal seat at Vadtal. In these two seats the main temples of this sect were established. In course of time a Scheme was required to be framed in connection with the Laxminarayan Dev temple at Vadtal and the final Scheme came to be made by this High Court in the First Appeal No. 543/70 confirmed to a major extent in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 183/73. The scheme is perfect in all details. Chapter III of the said scheme pertains to management of Trust Properties and for the purpose of management in Chapter IV the Constitution of the Board of Managing Trustees is mooted. Clause 18 of the said scheme provides that the Board of Managing Trustees shall consist of 8 members-4 being representatives to be elected from amongst Grasbasthis (householders) 3 representatives to be elected from amongst ascetics of the sect consisting of three different types known as Brahmacharis Sadhus and Palas and the Chief Kothari of the Vadtal temple was to be an ex-officio member with no right to vote in matters of appointment re-appointment dismissal removal etc. as provided therein. The election of the first Board of Managing Trustees as per the said scheme had taken place on 31-3-1980 At that election the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs and the present appellants Nos. 1 and 2 who will be referred to as the defendants Nos. 5 and 6 were elected. So were elected the present respondent No. 4 the respondent No. 5 the respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 7 was the member of the Board in his capacity as the Chief Kothari. Thus the Board consisted of 8 members. The respondents Nos. 4 5 6 and 7 will be hereinafter referred to as the defendant Nos. 2 3 4 and 9. The present appellants Nos. 3 and 4 are original defendants Nos. 7 and 8 who will be hereinafter referred to as such.

(3.) An agenda of the meeting of the Board of Managing Trustees was issued on 6-6-1980 and the meeting was be held on 11-6-1980. There was no agenda in respect of the alleged disqualification of the original plaintiffs but there was a residuary item about taking up any matter that was permitted to be taken on hand by the Chairman of the meeting. At that meeting an application was given by the defendant No. 5 to the Trustees that the original plaintiffs were in arrears of Namvero which is said to be a subscription to be paid by a registered followers of this sect. The application mentioned that as per clause 21 of the Scheme the plaintiffs being Satsangi members were in arrears of Namvero for a period of more than two years and they had therefore automatically ceased to be the members of the Committee. The Namvero is the contribution of 0.50. P per year by a registered Satsangi. Despite the protests of the plaintiffs and in the absence of two other members a resolution was passed that the plaintiffs had automatically vacated their membership and at the very meeting the original defendants Nos. 7 and 8 (who are appellants Nos. 3 and 4 in this appeal from order) were appointed. The plaintiffs therefore filed the aforesaid Suit No. 3 of 1980 in the District Court for a declaration that the Resolution dated 11-6-1980 passed at the meeting of the Board of Managing Trustees was illegal undemocratic violative of the principles of natural justice and therefore non-est and on that count the original plaintiffs continued to be the members of the Board of Trustees and the other Trustees had no authority to appoint the original defendants Nos. 7 and 8 as new members and as a consequential relief it was prayed that the said resolutions declaring the plaintiffs as ex-members and appointing the original defendants Nos. 7 and 8 as new members of the Board be not implemented. A prayer for interim injunction of the very nature was made and it was also granted by the learned Judge and ultimately after hearing both the sides the said interim injunction was made absolute in terms already extracted above. The present appeal from order is therefore directed against that interim injunction.