PURSHOTTAMDAS PARBHUDAS PATEL Vs. BAI DAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the pujaris of a temple of "balia Kaka " in the village of Lambha in Ahmedabad. THE defendants represent the village people of Lambha. It is common ground that Hindoos from Gujarat) have for several generations made vows to that idol when striken with small-pox and similar diseases, and have personally come to fulfil their vows and made voluntary offerings of money and other goods. Those offerings the plaintiffs have been appropriating as of right as pujaris of the temple. Some time back, the villagers, perhaps animated by jealousy, attempted to claim an interest in those offerings, but in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs in 1919 the latter's right to exclusively appropriate, them was established. Recently, on May 25, 1933, one of the defendants, namely defendant No.1, Patel Purshottam Shambhudas, purchased some open land in the village on the road leading to this temple and not far away from it, and published a notice in July, 1933, that he intended to build a new temple in fulfilment of his vow, and that a temple of Balia Kaka would be built at his own expense. THE plaintiffs therefore instituted this action alleging that the defendants would thereby be practising deception on the pilgrims to their temple and depriving them of their emoluments. It is said that inasmuch as this temple of Lambha is particularly celebrated in Gujarat, a similar temple built in the vicinity would be an infringement of their right as pujaris. In regard to the cause of action the plaint states as follows : THE Balia, Kaka Dev of Lambha has been an institution of very long standing and no one has a right to set up a temple or institution of that name at' Lambha. THEre has been only one institution or temple in existence at Lambha from ancient times. We are the hereditary pujaris of the said institution of Balia Kaka Dev at Lambha a long time since. On account of the said office we are getting annual income. Our right in connection with the said office and the income has been already established in a civil suit against village people. THEse defendants or any other persons have no right to do any such act which would tend to affect the said office of ours or reduce our income in connection with the said office. If the village people are allowed to set up a new temple of the name of Balia Kaka of Lambha and in the vicinity of the present temple and to receive the income therefrom through pujaris or in any other way, then our office as the pujaris of the Balia Kaka Dev of Lambha and the income we get in connection therewith will be prejudicially affected and our established right will be affected thereby.

(2.) THE plaintiffs therefore claimed an injunction against the defendants restraining them from setting up or causing to be set up a new temple of Balia Kaka in the village of Lambha. Alternatively they maintained that the defendants should be directed to make it known to others that the Balia Kaka temple which they would build is a new temple and an injunction issued to them preventing them from designating the new temple " Balia Kaka of Lambha " or by any other similar name.

(3.) DEFENDANTS Nos. 4 and 5, who are also pujaris like the plaintiffs, but who had refused to join thel plaintiffs and were therefore made pro forma defendants, were exempted from the restraining influence of the above order. DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 to 3 have appealed against the order.