BALRAM CHUNNILAL Vs. DURGALAL SHIVNARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff suing on the authority the panchas of the Hariyana Gaud Brahmin community of Indore from the judgment of dismissal delivered by the Civil Judge in a suit for the removal of the defendant, a pujari or shebait, and the framing of scheme, filed with the sanction of the Advocate General under Section 92 C. P. C. The suit was also framed on the alternative--the necessity of which will presently appear--that in the event of the defendant being found to be not a trustee or shebait but just an appointed pujari-servant for his removal on account of improper conduct and the claiming of the temple as his own property. It was dismissed on different grounds, primarily on that the particulars of the foundation of the temple were not clearly ascertainable, and further the defendant's father and brother having openly claimed to be the full owners and not the pujaris as long ago as in 1933, they had prescribed title to themselves and accordingly the suit was barred. (After stating facts and discussing evidence in paras 2 to 23 the judgment proceeded)

(2.) CONSIDERING that the panchas had even at the time of the purchase in 1914 intended and expressly stated that the idol was to be installed there for worship by Hindus in general we can have no doubt that the property vested in the idol as soon as that plan was implemented. Cases are conceivable where the intending founders of a religious endowment having proclaimed their intention do nothing towards carrying it out; but that is not the situation here. Not only had they proclaimed it; the deed mentions:-

(3.) THESE circumstances would be sufficient to show that the panchas had divested themselves in favour of the idol Satya-narayan Bhagwan. This is clear enough but a passage in the judgment of the Indore High Court in the 1927 litigation seems to suggest that they felt that there should be something like a registered deed to create a trust. This subject has been pronounced upon repeatedly by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court and we need quote only the decision of the latter in Dasaratharami v. D. Subba Rao, AIR 1957 S. C. 797;