PHULCHAND LAKHMICHAND JAIN Vs. HUKUMCHAND GULABCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a final decree made by the learned District Judge of West Khandesh at Dhulia in a suit instituted for accounts of a temple known as 'Shri Chandraprabhu Khandelwal Jain Temple' at Dhulia.

(2.) The plaintiffs alleged that the temple was a public trust; that all the members of the Khandelwal Jain Community were interested in the trust; that it was a temple of the Community and that the devotees offer their oblations to the temple on various occasions in their families; that certain festivals were held in the temple; that the father of the defendant No. 1 was a leading member in the community and for more than 40 years he was looking after the temple. After the death of Gulabchand Hiralal, hi son, the defendant No. 1, started managing the property,- the death of his father was somwwhere in 1949. It was further alleged that Gulabchand Hiralal contended that the temple was his familyproperty and that the members of the public had nthing to do with the temple. Because of this contention of his a suit was instituted being suit No. 51 of 1937 against Gulabchand Hiralal. It, however, appears that sanction was not obtained from the Collector under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter a Miscellaneous aplication was ade by the present plaintiffs and four other members of the Community for registration of the Trust under the provisions of the Bombay Act No. XXV of 1935 - being Misc. Application No. 110 of 1949, under Section 6 of the Act. During the pendency of that application the father of the defendant No. 1 died. It was held threin that the temple was public trust and that its income exceeded Rs. 1,000/- and therefore, it was ordered to be registered. The defendant No. 1 was ordered to furnish several particulars required by the Act. It appears that the defendant No. 1 tailed to furnish those particulars. after the Bombay Public Trut Act, 1950 (Act No. XXIX of 1950) came into force the plaintiffs approached the Assistant Charity Commissioner for the registration of the Trust and also sought permission of the Charity Commissioner for instituting a suit for accounts and for removal of the defendant No. 1 from the managership of the trust.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 challenged the case of the plaintiff with regard to the statements of the properties of the temple. He further stated that since 31st October 1951 he had kept separateaccount-books for the temple and that the same were audited from time to time. He then said that moveables including the case could be ascertained from the entries in the account-books. He contended that proper accounts were maintined by his father and himself in regard to the income and expenses of the temple. He also contended that the accounts were inspected by the plaintiffs and that he was bound to give particulars about the incorrectness of the accounts or the imporpriety of the management of the temple. He also challenged the relief sought for removal of himself as the trustee. He tried to explain the contention of his views and he wanted that the temple or its property should not change hands in regard to the management ad in that sense he set up his exclusive right to the same consistently with the position of the trustee thereof. He coaimed to be permitted to contimue in the management of the trust. The suit was instituted on the 17th of February 1954 and on the 3rd of November 1954 a decree was made by the learned District Judge appointing a Commissioner to ascertain the price of the furniture, books and silver posts belonging to the temple and also to find out the cash balance due to the temple till that day on taking accounts of the incoe and expenditure of the temple. He also gave some specific directions with regard to some persons who were to be on the managing committee along with the defendant No. 1. He also directed the plaintiffs and the defendants to submit a draft or drafts of the proposed scheme for the mangement of the temple within 15 days from that date.