RANCHHODDAS KALIDAS Vs. GOSWAMI SHREE MAHALAXMI VAHUJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question which this appeal raises for decision is whether the temple of Shree Gokul Nathji at Nadiad is a public charitable temple of the followers of Vallabha cult at Nadiad or whether it is a private temple belonging to the present worshipper, Goswami Shree Mahalaxmi Vahuji.

(2.) In the suit from which this appeal arises, the Vaishnav devotees of this temple alleged that the temple is a public charitable temple and claimed certain declarations in regard to the properties belonging to this temple. According to the plaintiffs, the idol of Shree Gokul Nathji is a public idol worshipped by the Vaishnava devotees of the place, and the Maharaja or the Maharani, who may be in management of the temple for the time being, is the trustee of the said idol and the temple in which it is worshipped.

(3.) Public festivals are held in this temple, like any other Hindu public temple, and it is the right of every Vaishnava follower of the Vallabha cult to take part in such festivals and to visit Shree Gokul Nathji for 'darshan.' For the upkeep and maintenance of this temple, 'lagas' or contributions have been paid by the Vaishnava businessmen of the town for more than a, hundred years past, and the amount thus collected is intended to be used, and has in fact been used, for the purposes of the temple. The plaint alleged that the Vaishnava devotees of Nadiad had invited Shree Mathuranathji, the direct descendant in the line of Shree Vallabha, to come to Nadiad, and on his arrival he had been put in charge of the worship and management of the temple o Shree Gokul Nathji. Thereafter voluntary contributions and gifts were made by the Vaishnava devotees, and Shree Mathuranathji managed the temple as a trustee during his lifetime. It appears that Mathuranathji was born in 1806 and he died somewhere in 1865 A.d. After his death, his son Vrajratnalalji took up the worship and management of the temple. During his regime, the Vaishnava devotees of Nadiad voluntarily levied a 'laga' of Rs. 8 per house in 1881 and celebrated 56 'bhogs' on a grand scale. About this time extensive additions to the temple property were made with the help of voluntary public subscriptions and contributions. Later, whenever any improvement had to be made in the temple or to properties appertaining to it, public funds were similarly raised and the Vaishnava devotees generously responded to appeals for help. In course of time, the temple acquired a garden land with the principal object of supplying flowers for the worship of the deity (Lot no. 2). A 'goshala' came to be added, and in this 'goshala' wore housed cows for the purpose of supplying milk, curds, and bettor for the worship of the deity. In 1882 Shree Vrajratnalalji died, and the management of the temple devolved upon his widow Maharani Vahuji. Prior to his death, Vrajratnalalji had made a will leaving the management of all the properties to his wife. Oaring Maharani Vahuji's time, the temple and its properties were managed by the Maharani in consultation with the devotees. This management continued until 1893, when the Maharani adopted Aniruddha. Within a month of this adoption the Maharani died and the management devolved upon the minor Aniruddha. Like her husband, the Maharani herself had made a will giving directions as to the manner in which the temple and the properties should be managed after her death. This management vested in the 'panchas' of the Vaishnava devotees during the minority of Aniruddha. After Aniruddha became a major, he took charge of the management and continued it during his lifetime. Aniruddha was married first, in 1908, and when his first wife died, he married again in 1932. Aniruddha died in 1936, and his widow, Shree Mahalaxmi Vahuji, who is defendant 1 to the suit, came into management. The plaint alleged that during his management Aniruddha attempted to acquire the 'gadi' of Jamnagar and in the process of acquiring this 'gadi' he incurred, heavy debts. After Aniruddha's death, defendant 1, claiming to be the absolute owner of the temple and its properties, created four mortgages over some of the properties of the temple, between 1939 and 1942, the mortgagees under these mortgages being defendants 3 to 6 respectively. She also sold the garden belonging to the temple, despite the protests from the Vaishnava devotees, for Rs. 82 000 on 9th April 1943. The purchaser of this garden is defendant 2. It would appear that defendant 2, in his turn, has sold portions of the property purchased by him to defendants 7 to 14. The Vaishuava devotees, therefore, claimed in the present suit that it should be declared that the movable and the immovable properties described in Schedules A and B attached to the plaint are the properties of the temple of the deity Shree Gokul Nathji, and as such are public charitable trust properties of Shree Vallabha Sampradaya. They also claimed a declaration that the sale-deeds executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 3, and by defendant 2 in his turn to defendants 7 to 14, are not binding against the temple, and a mandatory injunction against these purchasers directing them to restore the possession of the properties purchased by thorn to defendant 1 for and on behalf of the temple. A declaration with regard to the mortgages executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 3 to 6 was likewise claimed in the plaint. It would thus be seen that, broadly speaking, the plaintiffs' case was that the suit-temple is a public charitable temple of Vaishnava devotees of the Vallabha sect, that defendant 1 is the manager and trustee of this temple, and that the alienations made by her are not binding against the temple. Since the purchasers from defendant 1 had already acquired possession of the properties sold to them, a claim for possession of these properties was made and the possession was asked to be delivered to defendant 1 as the manager and trustee of the temple. To the plaint were attached two schedules; schedule a refers to 14 lots of immovable properties, whereas Schedule B refers to 8 items of movable properties belonging to the temple. Lot No. 1 in Schedule A is the temple of Shree Gokul Nathji itself; it is situated at Satpipli in Nadiad.