SHRINIVAS R ACHARYA Vs. PURSHOTTAM CHATURBHUJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs seek directions of this Court, which they say are necessary for the administration of a public charitable trust, known as "narayanwadi Temple Trust". They have obtained sanction of the Advocate General under Section 92, Civil P. C. 10 institute this suit.

(2.) THERE is in Bombay what is known as "narayanwadi Temple" wherein are installed, deities of Shri Ramanuj and Shri Balaji, worshipped by Hindu Vaishnavs who in this particular case are mostly Cutchi Lohanas of the Ramanuj sect. It appears that the temple and valuable properties belonging to it were being managed by one Ramanuj Acharya, who was officiating as an 'acharya' or guru' in 1929,' when the Advocate General of Bombay filed a suit being suit No. 654 of 1929 against him for a declaration that the properties belonging and appertaining to the said temple at Narayanwadi were held by him as a trustee of a public charitable and religious trust. An account of the management of the trust properties by the said Ramanuj Acharya was also claimed in that suit. It was also prayed that a scheme should be framed for the proper administration of the said trust. Other incidental reliefs were also asked for in that suit.

(3.) THAT suit was contested by Ramanuj Acharya, who claimed that he held the properties in question under various documents and that they were vested in him as the owner of the same. He denied that he was liable to render any account of his management. He also denied that the properties belonged to a public charitable and religious trust. After a preliminary decree 'inter alia' for accounts and framing a scheme was passed the parties to that suit arrived at a compromise and a consent decree was obtained from this Court on 17-11-1935. By that consent decree it was declared that a scheme should be framed for the proper administration of the trust which was declared to be a public charitable trust. There were certain other terms in that consent decree with which I am not concerned. A scheme was framed and approved by the Advocate General and sanctioned by this Court.