GOKULDAS Vs. NANDLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the decision of Tare J., in Misc. Appeal No. 106 of 1962 preferred by the appellant Gokuldas s/o Balkishan Mahajan of Amjhera and another against the decision of the Additional District Judge Dhar in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1953 refusing, to set aside the order recording a compromise in a suit filed after securing the consent of the Advocate General by the appellants under Section 92 C.P.C. for the removal of defendant Nandlal and his son Gokuldas from the temple and its properties of Goverdhannathji at Amjhera from the position of Nandlal as a Pujari appointed by the members of the Nima Mahajan and other Vaishnavaites of Amjhera and for appointment of another suitable person in his place of look after the worship of the deity and to manage the temple properties and for preparing a scheme for the afore -said purpose. It was alleged in the plaint that the said Nandlal was not earring out his duties regarding worship of the deity and management of the property properly and had begun laying personal claim to the temple and its properties. The plaintiffs alleged that the properties set out in the list attached to the plaint had been dedicated to the deity by the Vaishnavaites and is the Devottar property belonging to the Vaishnavait community.

(2.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the house in which the deity of Gordhannathji was installed was a private house belonging to fore fathers of the defendants as the same had been gifted to them. The deities installed were private. They belonged to the defence family and not to members of Vaishnava community. The immoveable property is the personal property of the defendants whereas they do not have in their possession any moveable property in trust. The most of the moveables mentioned in the list are those belonging to the defendants and meant for their day to day domestic used. On these and other grounds the claim was denied.

(3.) THE plaintiffs appealed against this order. The matter was heard by Tare, J., who affirmed the view of the trial Judges that the compromise in fact had taken place as had been found by the trial Court. The learned Judge consequently affirmed that finding. It was however further contended before the learned Judge that no compromise could take place in this manner in a suit under Section 92 C.P.C. The learned Judge on review of authorities held that a compromise can be effected in a suit of that sort although it is open for the Court while recording the compromise to examine whether interest of any public trust is not being bartered away for private ends. Considering the matter from this point of view the learned Judge observed: -