RAM CHAITAYANA MAHARAJ Vs. AMBAJIRAO ANANDRAO RADHEPANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellant- original defendant no. 1 to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned 2 nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara dated 31/12/2003 in Regular Civil Suit No. 371/1978 as well as the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned lower appellate Court-learned 3 rd Additional District Judge, Vadodara dated 21/03/2012 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 08/2004 by which the learned appellate Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant-original defendant no. 1 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial decreeing the suit.

(2.) THE respondents-original plaintiffs-trustees of Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust, Vadodara instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 371/1978 against the appellant-original defendant no. 1 and others for declaration and permanent injunction to declare that the appellant-original defendant no. 1 has no right whatsoever in the rooms, which are situated at the first floor towards the southern side of the Ganpati Temple and also for permanent injunction restraining the original defendants to interfere in the administration of Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple and from accepting donation, presents etc. The respondents- original plaintiffs also prayed for decree directing the appellant-original defendant no. 1 to handover peaceful and actual possession of the rooms situated towards the southern side of the first floor of Ganpati Temple to the respondents- original plaintiffs. It was the case on behalf of the respondents-original plaintiffs that the appellant-original defendant no. 1 was appointed to manage the property of the Ganpati Temple at a monthly salary of Rs. 300/- since 11/12/1975 but he was not properly behaving and as such he tried to become the owner of the Temple property and started receiving presents and articles given by the devotees/'darshanarthi' and he attempted to possess the property of the Temple and to interfere in the administration of the property. Ultimately, the service of the appellant-original defendant no. 1 was terminated and he was relived from service under Resolution dated 14/07/1977. It was alleged by the respondents-original plaintiffs that the appellant-original defendant no. 1 became angry and continued to live in the suit room without the permission of the respondents-original plaintiffs, and in collusion with all the original defendants with the help of anti-social elements started to behave like an owner of the Temple and dispossessed other employees from the rooms and tried to take possession. It was also the case on behalf of the respondents-original plaintiffs that they filed the complaint before the Raopura Police Station against the appellant-original defendant no. 1. Thereafter, the respondents-original plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for the aforesaid reliefs. The suit was resisted by the appellant- original defendant no. 1 by filing written statement at Exh. 22. It was not disputed that the suit property is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. However, the appellant-original defendant no. 1 denied that he was in service of the trust. It was the case on behalf of the appellant-original defendant no.1 that he is the 'Mahant' of the suit property and he is 'Brahmachari'. It was the case on behalf of the appellant- original defendant no. 1 that he never identified himself as 'sadhu'. It was the case on behalf of the appellant-original defendant no. 1 that as such Rs. 300/- was agreed to be given to him for maintenance and not as salary/remuneration. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant-original defendant no. 1 that all the suit properties were private properties and were owned by Swami Chidanand, who was 'Sanyasi' and had executed the will during his life time and appointed Shri Vallabhramji Maharaj as 'Mahant' and trustee. It was the case on behalf of the appellant-original defendant no. 1 that on the death of Shri Vallabhramji Maharaj the appellant-original defendant no. 1 was appointed as 'Mahant' and managing trustee on the vacant post and, therefore, it was the specific case of the appellant-original defendant no. 1 that he was appointed as 'Mahant' and managing trustee of the Temple on THE VACANT POST OF SHRI VALLABHRAMJI MAHARAJ.

(3.) HEARD Shri Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original defendant no. 1 and considered the impugned judgment and orders passed by both the Courts below. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such the suit filed by the respondents-original plaintiff was against the appellant-original defendant no. 1 for recovery of possession of the Temple property on the ground that though his services have been terminated by passing Resolution dated 11/07/1977 he is interfering with the administration and is behaving as an owner. However, it was the case on behalf of the appellant- original defendant no. 1 that he was the 'Mahant' on the death of Shri Vallabhramji Maharaj and, therefore, considering the above, it cannot be said that the suit was barred in view of Sections 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. It is also required to be noted that as such on appreciation of evidence both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the appellant-original defendant no. 1 has failed to prove that he was appointed as 'Mahant' at any point of time. On appreciation of evidence, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the appellant-original defendant no. 1 was appointed for a monthly salary of Rs. 300/-. Both the Courts below have also held on appreciation of evidence that Shri Vallabhramji Maharaj was not the 'Mahant' but he was only a trustee and, therefore, there was no question of appointing the appellant-original defendant no. 1 as 'Mahant' on the post which had fallen vacant. The finding of fact given by both the Courts below holding that the appellant-original defendant no. 1 was never appointed as 'Mahant' are on appreciation of evidence, which are not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also required to be noted that as such the services of the appellant-original defendant no. 1 came to be terminated by the Trust by passing the Resolution. Under the circumstances, when the services of the appellant-original defendant no. 1 was terminated by the respondents-original plaintiffs by passing the Resolution dated 11/07/1977 thereafter he had no right to continue in the suit premises and interfere with the administration and management of the Temple/Trust. Under the circumstances, no illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in decreeing the suit and granting declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for and the same is rightly confirmed by the learned appellate Court.