DEO SANSTHAN CHINCHWAD Vs. CHINTAMAN DHARNIDHAR DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the original defendants against a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents awarding Rs. 14,457, costs of the suit and interest at 3 per cent from date of suit till full satisfaction on Rs. 12, 517-8-0 or on so such out of it as may remain unrealised from time to time. The plaintiffs belong to the Dev' family. It is their case that the village of Mouje Chincholi, Taluka Haveli, was given in Inam by Shri Chhatrapati Raja Shahu to Shri Narayan Maharaj Dev, son of Chintaman Maharaj Dev, for meeting the expenses of the Deity Shri Mangalmurti at Chinchwad. Apart from the village of Chincholi, other villages like Chinchwad, Raval, Charoli were also given in Inam. It appears that the Inam was for meeting the expenses of the Deity. In 1744, there were disputes in the Dev family and that is why Peshwa Bajirao set apart half of the Inam villages and properties for religious and charitable purposes under a Tahanama, and the remaining half of the properties were distributed amongst the members of the Dev family to provide for their household needs and maintenance. After this Tahnama, some more properties were received by the Vahivatdar of the Sansthan from the contemporary rulers and by the end of 1774-74 the newly acquired properties came to be also divided under the terms of the Tahnama of the year 1744, and half of that was reserved to the Sansthan for the above-mentioned purposes. That was the effect of the Tahnama which was made by the Peshwa Madhavrao Ballal who gave an award to that effect. When the vahivat of the Sanstham's properties was being thus carried on, one Dhondo Ganesh Dev and other members of the Dev family filed Civil Suit No. 2 of 1883 in the District Court at Poona against the then Vahiwatdars of the Sansthan, Chintaman Bajaji Dev and his son Appaji. The suit was filed for removal of the Vahivatdars Chintaman and his son and the framing of a new scheme for the vahivat of the Sansthan and its property. It appears that the defendants in that suit denied that the Chinchwad Sansthan was a public religious or charitable institution and they stated that they were not trustees but owners of the property in suit. They denied that they committed any breach of trust and they also asserted that they were not liable to render any account of their management. The District Court passed a decree removing Chintaman Bajaji Deo and Appaji Deo from trusteeship of the Sansthan and appointing new trustees, after framing a new scheme. There was an appeal against this decision of the District Court, being Appeal No. 71 of 1886, by Chintaman Bajaji Dev, and this Court confirmed the decree of the lower Court. The case was sent back to the District Court to take accounts and also to report as to the best mode of providing, in the future, for the management, both secular and spiritual, of several shrines and their endowments, after giving notices to the parties to the suit. Since the defendants had asserted their private ownership to the suit properties, this Court also reserved to the defendants

(2.) SHRI Dev Sansthan Chinchwad was impleaded as defendant No. 1 to the suit. Plaintiff No. 1 being trustee of the Sansthan on the date that the suit was filed, was also impleaded as defendant No. 2, while defendants Nos. 3 to 6 were impleaded as the other trustees of the Sansthan, Defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 resisted the suit on behalf of defendant No. 1 by their written statement (Exhibit 15 ). One of their objections to the suit was that it was untenable as plaintiff No. 1 was also defending the suit in his capacity as a co-trustee of the defendants. It seems that at the time the suit was filed, plaintiff No. 1 was the chief trustee of the Sansthan who had applied to the Committee in his personal capacity to recognise his private claim and pay his dues. It appears, however, that as he filed the present suit, the learned District Judge removed him from the office of trustee even before the trial of the suit commenced. That is why defendant No. 2 came to be struck off from the suit as he had been removed from the office. The other contentions of the defendants were that the suit was bad for multifariousness, that plaintiff had no title to receive Rs. 417-4-0 out of the Vasool of the village of Chincholi; that the prior proceedings were not binding on defendant No. 1 Sansthan and the trustees, as the Sansthan was not a party to them and that as plaintiff No. 1 was himself a trustee of defendant No. 1 he could not acquire title by adverse possession against the Sansthan. It was further contended that in any case the defendants should not be ordered to pay costs as the plaintiffs had by their negligence failed to take proper steps to assert their claim in the land acquisition proceedings.

(3.) ON these pleadings, several issues were framed. The trial Court held that the suit was not bad for multifariousness inasmuch as both the plaintiffs claimed a right to receive Rs. 150 out of the Vasool from the village of Chincholi by grant and judicial decisions, whereas plaintiff No. 1 claimed a right to receive Rs. 267-4-0 out of the Vasool of the village as a legatee under the will of Annaji. It may be mentioned that this question has not been pressed in this appeal. It was held further that it was open to the defendants to put plaintiffs to a proof of their title in spite of prior Court proceedings or documents. It was found that the plaintiffs proved that their joint family had a right to receive Rs. 150 out of Vasool from the village of Chincholi and plaintiff No. 1 had a right to receive Rs. 267-4-0 out of the said vasool as a legatee under the will of Annaji. It was further held that plaintiffs had acquired the above rights by adverse possession despite the fact that plaintiff No. 1 had been a trustee of the Sansthan. It was further found that plaintiffs were entitled to Rs. 12,517-8-0 out of the compensation amount awarded under the land acquisition proceeding and interest on that sum at 6 per cent per annum from the date of demand till date of suit and at 3 per cent thereafter. It was further found that plaintiffs would be entitled to their costs even though they had not pursued their claim in the land acquisition proceedings. In accordance with these findings, the trial Court passed a decree in favour of plaintiffs for an amount of Rs. 14,456 and interest at 3 per cent from date of such suit till full satisfaction on Rs. 12,517-8-0 or on so much out of it as may remain unreaslied from time to time, as also costs, whivh were to come out of the estate of defendant No. 1 Sansthan. It is against this decree that the present appeal has been filed by the Sansthan through its trustees.