SUBHASH TRIMBAKRAO INAMDAR Vs. PANDURANG TANSINGH SAVNER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE appellants out of whom the appellant No. 1 is the original nonapplicant before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Amravati is impugning the decision dated 3/04/1996 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 76 of 1993, by the Joint District Judge, Amravati upon an application filed under section 72 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Trust Act') which application came to be rejected under the said order. The appellants had preferred an application under section 72 of the Trust Act, before the District Judge, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Assistant Charity Commissioner dated 3/06/1993 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Amravati on the application made by the respondents under section 50-A of the Trust Act, for framing scheme.

(3.) THE subject-matter of the dispute relates to Shri Shukleshwar deosthan of Wathoda Shukleshwar. The indisputable facts are that the ancestors of the appellants namely - Bapuji Raghunath Inamdar (Gurav)was granted Inam of the Trust property on 23rd May, 1867, under which agricultural land bearing survey No. 202, admeasuring 21 Acres 28 gunthas of village Wathoda Shukleshwar was granted to Bapuji, so as to enable him to maintain the Shukleshwar Mahadeo Temple, out of the income of the lands and also to maintain his family. It is under this grant that Bapuji Raghunath Inamdar became the owner of the agriculture land andjncharge of Shukleshwar Mahadeo Temple. The litigation has a checkered history, as on previous occasion also an attempt was made to dislodge Tukaram son of Bapuji, on the ground that he has not been able to maintain the temple and carry out Pooja regularly, as the temple was not repaired nor it was lighted, but the same came to be turned down, there was another complaint against the appellants by the respondents that the deceased Tryambak has no issue and he died issueless, therefore a receiver may be appointed. The same also came to be dismissed. The present appellants are the successors of deceased Tryambak Inamdar.