RAJGOPAL RAGHUNATHDAS SOMANI Vs. RAMCHANDRA HAJARIMAL JHAVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of letters patent appeals Nos. 54 and 89 of 1964, application No. 1379 of 1964, miscellaneous civil application No. 51 of 1964 and civil revision application No. 1902 of 1964. All these matters relate to a public temple known as Shri Laxminarayan Bhagwan Mandir, which is a public trust. The origin and history of this trust and its properties is not very clear from the record of the proceedings before us and appears to have been lost in antiquity, but such facts as we have been able to ascertain and which are relevant for the purposes of the matters before us are briefly as follows:

(2.) THE site on which the temple stands in Sholapur town was purchased by one Ramnarain Kashinath Singh on August, 5, 1890, The temple was then built on it and the idol of God Laxminarayan installed. On January 29, 1912, an Utsava was arranged for worship of the idol and at that time the person who arranged it was the priest Rangachari Ramanujachari. The temple followed the Ramanuja Sampradaya and in that persuasion it appears that there are two sects, the Tingle sect sect and the Badgal sect. Shri Rangachari belonged to the Tingle sect sect. Thereafter the history of this temple is somewhat obscure, but it appears that one Ganeshram Somani was its manager. Ganeshram Somani died in 1930 and was succeeded by Raghunathdas his son. Raghunathdas died in 1947 and was succeeded by Narsinghdas. Till this date it appears that there were really no disputes and that Narsinghdas Somani was a man of the confidence of the entire Sampradaya.

(3.) FOR the purposes of the proceedings before us however' it is not disputed by any of the parties that Shri Laxminarayan Bhagwan Mandir at Sholapur is a public trust. The point of dispute between the parties is as to who should be its proper trustees. In the application filed by Narsinghdas Somani (No. 3/2485 of 1952) he had originally shown a certain number of trustees, but by a further application he had admitted that there were 16 persons as trustees. That application signed by Narsinghdas Somani is at exh, 128. When the matter came before the Assistant Charity Commissioner for the purposes of registration of the public trust other questions were raised. The Assistant Charity Commissioner held that the temple and its properties were undoubtedly a public trust. There was also a dispute raised before him as to the mode of worship adopted at the temple, but the view which the Assistant Charity Commissioner took was that that was a question which the contending parties could have settled in a civil Court. As to who .should be the trustees of this public trust, the Assistant Charity Commissioner negatived the contention raised on behalf of Motilal Ramanarayan that he should be the sole trustee because it was a private trust. The entire claim made by Motilal Ramnarayan was negatived and it was held that the temple was a public temple and Motilal had no right to be a trustee thereof. The Assistant Charity Commissioner appointed thirteen persons as trustees all of whom were named in the application (exh. 128) of Narsinghdas Somani, except three. One of the trustees whose claims were put forward was Rangachari Ramanujachari who, as we have stated, was the priest attached to the temple. It was claimed on his behalf that he was ah ex -officio trustee by virtue of his being the priest but that claim was negatived by the Assistant Charity Commissioner.