BAPUGOUDA YADGOUDA PATIL Vs. VINAYAK SADASHIV KULKARNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This is a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code relating to a Hindu temple of Shree Kalleshwar at Mangur in the Chikodi taluka. The plaintiffs are residents of Mangur claiming an interest in the institution. In the plaint they have given an account of what they say is the history of the temple and the circumstances leading to the suit. There are three fields which form the endowment. The management of the property at first belonged to the village officers and in 1883, after an official inquiry, a committee of management was formed, consisting of the officiating patil and kulkarni and three other residents of the village. This committee functioned till 1893. After 1893 a member of the Kulkarni family, who was not officiating, acted as manager, and in 1899, when Yadagouda, father of defendant No.4, ceased to be officiating revenue patil and his son defendant No, 4 was appointed as deputy, he still continued to be a manager of the institution. The panchas who were appointed along with the village officers died in course of time and after 1918, Yadagouda Patil and Sadashiv Kulkarni were the only trustees in management. After the death of Yadagouda in 1928 the plaintiffs allege that Sadashiv, who incidentally was the father of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.10, was in sole charge of the management.

(2.) THE plaint further alleges that in June, 1930, there was a public meeting in the village at which five persons, viz. defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, one Annagonda Devgonda Patil and one Ramchandra Pandurang Kulkarni deceased were elected vahivatdars. Two of the fields belonging to the temple, survey Nos. 90 and 91, were leased to Sattu Appa, defendant. No.9, in 1926. His lease expired on March 31, 1931, and the plaintiffs allege that the lands were then put to auction and leased to new; tenants by the five vahivatdars appointed in 19'30. Defendant No.4 and his brother defendant No.5, and another brother, who was not among the defendants, claimed a right to manage the temple exclusively and took a lease of the fields in their own names. That led to disputes which according to the plaintiffs have endangered the proper administration of the trust. Defendant No.9 having got a new lease in his favour brought a suit in 1931 which lasted for several years. In the course of it a receiver was appointed who took possession of the two fields. In March, 1935, the suit was withdrawn. Plaintiffs allege that because of the patil family, i.e. the family of defendant No.4, having put forward a false claim to the property of the temple there has been a complete breach of the fulfilment of the purposes of the trust. THE management of the God's affairs and the property of the deity has been endangered and it cannot be definitely stated who is responsible for the management. That being so, it is necessary that the direction of the Court should be obtained for the administration of the trust by appointment of new trustees and vesting of the property in them. It is stated that defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 who claim the right of management are Jains and are therefore wholly incompetent to be vahivatdars of a Hindu temple. THE plaint recites that defendants Nos. 1 to 7 and 10 claim a right to management of the suit property and that defendants Nos. 8, 9 and 11 claim to be in possession of the suit lands as tenants. It may be mentioned that defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 10 are related to some of the plaintiffs. THE reliefs claimed in the plaint are (1) a scheme of management, (2) appointment of new trustees, (3) order for vesting of the property, (4) such further reliefs as the nature of the case may require.

(3.) ISSUES were framed. The learned Judge overruled technical objections to the maintainability of the suit and held that the directions of the Court were necessary for the administration of the trust. He also held that defendant No.4 had failed to prove his claim to be the sole hereditary vahivatdar and he drew up a scheme of management which is set out in detail in paragraph 18 of the judgment. According to this there are to be two ex officio trustees and three persons to be elected from amongst Hindu devotees of the temple. The officiating trustees are to be either the police or revenue patil and the kulkarni. The patils are to hold office for three years alternately, the first to officiate being the police patil. So that, although defendant No.4 has not been held to be incompetent, he has been placed on the same footing as the police patil and has been omitted from the managing committee for the first period of three years.