MAHARANI HEMANTA KUMARI DEBI Vs. GAURI SANKAR TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sanctity which Hindu thought and feeling attribute to the Ganges and the special veneration which its stream commands at it flows past the holy city of Benares (Kashi) are manifested by the temples and bathing ghats upon the banks. THE efficacy of its waters to wash away every form of sin and pollution is widely accepted doctrine among the orthodox and brings the Hindu pilgrim in large numbers seeking to acquire religious merit and advantage. According to evidence given in the present case "Mankarnika, Dasaswamedh, Panch Ganga, Assi and Barna are the panch tirthas, of Kashi: one who comes to Kashi on pilgrimage has to visit all these five places." In this appeal their Lordships are concerned with a bathing ghat which is known as the Prayag or Puthiya ghat and which is covered by the name Dasaswamedh--the name of a mohalla, of the city.

(2.) THE suit was brought on February 15, 1929, in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares, THE plaintiff was Maharani Hemanta Kumari Debi, widow of the last male owner of the Puthiya Raj estate. She claimed to be owner of the ghat. She will be referred to as "the plaintiff" notwithstanding that pending this appeal she has by relinquishnent accelerated the interest of her husband's reversioners who have been joined with her as appellants to His Majesty in Council. She impleaded six sets of defendants, fourteen persons in all, alleging that they belonged to a class of Brahmins known as ghatias and that they, and their predecessors, had been allowed by the owners of the ghat to sit on different portions of it in order to gain a livelihood by receiving alms and gifts from pilgrim bathers. She complained that the defendants were abusing the permission granted to them, by altering the condition of the steps, putting down platforms of earth and wood, erecting canopies, and blocking up the free space to the detriment of the utility, cleanliness and beauty of the ghat. She alleged that the defendants were mere squatters; that she had been willing to allow them to continue to sit on the ghat if they would execute written agreements for the proper conduct of the ghat; but that they had failed or refused so to do. She asked for relief in different forms--a declaration that she was the owner of the ghat and that the defendants had no right to sit on any portion of it; an order of ejectment of the defendants; an order for removal of the various obstructions put up by the defendants; and an injunction restraining the defendants "from using any portion of the said Prayag ghat as ghatias in any season of the year and from sitting and squatting over the same for the purposes of collecting dan dakshina from the bathers."

(3.) ON March 27, 1935, it came before a division bench, who, in referring it to a full bench, recorded an order mentioning that before them it was not in dispute that the plaintiff was owner of the ghat or that: the defendants or their predecessors had sat on different portions of the ghat for generations; also that the defendants did not claim any right by virtue of adverse possession but that they did claim a right of property in the ghat in respect of their long use of it for the purpose of assisting the bathers. A single judg ment was given by the full bench (Sulaiman C.J., Bajpai and Ganga Nath JJ.) on January 3, 1936. The learned Judges maintained the decree of the trial Judge in so far as it directed removal of railings, planks, canopies and other articles of obstruction but discharged the trial Judge's order of ejectment and the injunction granted by him to restrain the defendants from using the ghat as ghatias or sitting or squatting over the same. They discharged also the declaration made by the trial Judge that the plaintiff was owner of the ghat. The plaintiff upon this appeal complains of these variations and asks that the decree of the trial Judge be restored.