IDOL GANESHJI MAHARAJ Vs. J.M. ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiffs.

(2.) GANPAT Rao, maternal grand -father of Madhav Ramchandra Agashe, constructed a row of houses called Bada. He also constructed a temple and installed therein an idol of Shri Ganeshji Maharaj sometime before the year 1900. Ganpat Rao's widow was Saraswatibai. After the death of Ganpat Rao, she sold the entire property to defendant No. 2 respondent No. 2, Firm Nandram Narayandas, vide sale -deed dated 10 -4 -1933 (Ex. D/6). Later, respondent No. 2, vide sale -deed dated 7 -2 -1957, sold all that property to defendant No. 1 respondent No. 1. Saraswatibai died in the year 1948 without leaving any son. Plaintiff Madhav Ramchandra is the daughter's son of Saraswati Bai and Ganpatrao. Ramchandra had taken proceedings before the Aukauf Department of the then Gwalior State laying claim to this property as a public trust His claim was rejected by Aukauf Department, vide order Ex. D/1.

(3.) THE plaintiffs' case is that the temple in question which also includes the Sabhagrah, was constructed by his mother's father Ganpat Rao somewhere in the year 1900. Deity of Ganeshji Maharaj was installed in that temple after due ceremonies. The temple is known as Pendse temple and the other house property is known as Pendse Bada. Ganpat Rao had a right to worship the deity in the temple and to manage the temple. On his death, his entire property, i.e. the Pendse temple, Pendse Bada and right to worship the deity and manage the temple were inherited by his widow, Saraswatibai from Ganpat Rao. She did not nor could she under the law transfer the right to worship the deity and manage the temple. The respondent No. 2, therefore, acquired no right to manage the temple. The right to worship continued in the family of Ganpat Rao and was inherited by the plaintiff as reversioner after the death of Saraswatibai in the year 1948, he being daughters son of Saraswati bai. It was, therefore, alleged that even on transfer of the property by the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No. 1 by sale -deed dated 7 -2 -1957, this right to worship the deity and, therefore, the consequent right of access to the deity and the temple and also the right to manage the temple devolved and continued to vest in Madhav Ramchandra. Further allegation is that having obtained the sale -deed dated 7 -2 -1957, respondent No.1 started proclaiming that with other properties, he has also purchased the temple. The respondent No. 1 not only made such declaration but also threatened to dismentle the Sabhagrah which, according to the appellants, is a part of the temple itself. Defendant No. 1 also used to lock the temple which made it manifest that he challenged the right of the plaintiff Madhav Ramchandra to approach the temple, manage it and worship the deity installed therein. It is this adverse claim by the respondent No. 1 which gave the plaintiffs a cause of action to file a suit giving rise to this appeal. Many reliefs were claimed. As I have earlier stated, the claim in this appeal is restricted only on behalf of the Madhav Ramchandra and that too for declaration that he has a right to enter into the temple, worship the deity and to manage the temple including the Sabhagrah as its part. The plaintiffs also claim that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the aforesaid rights.