RADHA CHARAN DAS Vs. TH MOHINI BEHARIJI MAHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court whereby the said Court allowed an appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court by its order dated(?) returned the plaint for presentation to the proper Court holding that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the same was beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction. The lower appellate Court held that the suit was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court and, therefore, set aside the order passed by the trial Court and directed that the plaint be retained and the suit be tried by it.

(2.) THE brief facts are these. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant seeking the relief of mandatory injunction removing the defendant from the Tattisthan and a prohibitory injunction was also claimed that he should not frequent the said Tattisthan and should not interfere with the management of the same and the other properties connected therewith. These reliefs were claimed in Cl. (a) of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. In clause (b) of the reliefs claimed in the plaint, the plaintiff sought that if in the opinion of the Court it was necessary, then the possession of the office held by the defendant be given to the plaintiffs. In the body of the plaint it was alleged that the plaintiff No. 1 Thakur Mohini Behariji was an idol Birajman in the temple situated on the Tattisthan. The entire property vested in the idol and the management of the idol was entrusted to the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 who were the trustees. It was further alleged that the trustees appointed a person who looked after and managed the affairs of the idol and such person was described as the Mahant. By an agreement dated 30th September, 1937 the defendant was appointed such Mahant and he was a licensee and agent of the plaintiffs bound by the terms of the agreement. The defendant committed breach and acted against the terms laid down in the said agreement. Some of the breaches were detailed in clauses (a) to (d) of paragraph 5 of the plaint. Certain complaints against the defendant were lodged with the plaintiffs and the trustees enquired into the said complaints and found them to be correct. An explanation was sought from the defendant but he submitted none. Hence the trustees (plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6) acting on behalf of the idol (plaintiff No. 1) held a valid meeting and removed the defendant from his office. In paragraph 8 (a) of the plaint it was stated that the defendant had removed many valuable manuscripts and religious books from the Tattisthan and had buried some of these books in the ground and some of the books were thrown into the river Jamuna. It was further alleged that the defendant was denying the rights and title of the plaintiff No. 1 and he was also denying the right of management of the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6. In fact, he was denying that the plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 6 were the trustees and he claimed the right of management in himself. On all these grounds the defendant was not fit to continue in the office of the Mahant and he was fit to be removed from the said office. In paragraph 8 (b) of the plaint it was alleged that the defendant had alienated a property owned by the plaintiff No. 1 and situated in Madhya Pradesh and this was done without the knowledge and permission of the plaintiffs trustees and he (the defendant) had misappropriated and squandered the receipts from the sale of the said properties. It was further alleged that the alienation of the said property was made on the false representation that the property belonged to the defendant. On all these grounds the defendant was unfit to continue as the Mahant and was liable to be removed from the said office. In paragraph 9 of the plaint it was stated that the defendant was directed to remove himself from the Tattisthan and not to visit the same and not to interfere in the management of the same, but he did not pay any heed to the plaintiff's direction. In paragraph 10 of the plaint it was stated that the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction removing the defendant from the Tattisthan and the plaintiffs were also entitled to a prohibitory injunction against the defendant restraining him from frequenting the Tattisthan and from interfering with the management of the same. Further, in case it was found necessary that possession should be got back from the defendant, then the plaintiffs were also entitled to get back possession. In paragraph 12 of the plaint it was said that for the purposes of determining the jurisdiction of the Court and paying court-fee the suit was being valued at Rupees 500.00 as the property in question belonged to the idol. Further, the office and the management were not capable of any valuation. Hence court-fee was paid on the said amount of Rs. 500.00.

(3.) THE trial Court issued a commission to the Amin to make a local inspection and submit his report regarding the valuation of the properties involved in the suit. The Amin submitted his report which is Paper No. 219-C and the map is Paper No. 220-C in the record of the trial Court. According to the estimate submitted by the Amin the value of the property attached to the Tattisthan was about Rs. 21,385.00. The said figure included the value of the temple also. The trial Court held that a temple has no market value. Therefore, the value of the temple should not have been included in the said figure of Rs. 21,385.00. Thereafter, the trial Court, in its order, observed :-