RAMCHANDRA MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of Miscellaneous petition No. 2605 of 1983 also. The appellants in Civil First Appeal No. 6 of 1979 renumbered as 211 of 1986 filed M. P. No. 76 of 1957 challenging the constitutional validity of Madhya Bharat Shri Mahakaleshwar Temple Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1953) on various grounds asserting that they were the Pujadhikaris or pujaris from the time of their ancestors of the deity of Shri Mahakaleshwar at Ujjain which was a 'jyotirlinga' and were entitled to the offerings made to the said deity. According to them there were two sects of these Pujaris, one known as Janeu Pati and the other as Khoont Pati, the former were entitled to twelve annas share and the latter four annas share in the offerings. Their case further was that the deity had all along been in the charge of the Pujaris who had been performing its Sewa Puja in accordance with the established custom. The writ petition was contested by the respondents thereto and came up for decision before a Division Bench. There was a difference of opinion between the two Judges and the matter was referred to the Chief Justice who took the view that since disputed questions of fact were involved, the proper course for the appellants who were the petitioners was to file a suit. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed and the appellants after serving a notice under Section 80, Code of Civil procedure, instituted Suit No. 5 of 1965 which later on seems to have been numbered as suit No. 19-A of 1977 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ujjain. The State of madhya Pradesh and Shri Mahakaleshwar Mandir Samiti, Ujjain, were arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 respectively in the suit and it was prayed therein that the defendants may be permanently restrained from interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs to manage the affairs of Shri Mahakaleshwar Jyotirlinga, to perform its Sewa Puja and to receive the offerings and funds. A further relief of permanent injunction was sought directing the defendants not to enforce the impugned provisions of the Act of 1953 and not to take over the management of the Mandir.

(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendants. They denied that the plaintiffs had any right as claimed by them and asserted that the right of the plaintiffs to the cash offerings was only permissive in nature and was in lieu of their services. It was also pleaded in defence that even before the commencement of the Act of 1953 there was a committee of officials and non-official members in the former Gwalior State to look after and manage the affairs of the temple popularly known as the Mahakal Temple, which from time to time used to seek necessary orders from the Ruler of the State. It was also asserted that no provision of the Act of 1953 was ultra vires or violative of any article of the Constitution of India.

(3.) AFTER framing necessary issues and hearing the parties, the Second Additional district Judge, Ujjain, dismissed the suit on 30th October 1978. He held that the plaintiffs are not Pujadhikaris in their own right. They perform Puja in lieu of the portion of Charotris allotted to them by the Government. They do not have such exclusive right of performing the worship as claimed by them, nor have they been performing the Puja in lieu of their hereditary right. He also held that the plaintiffs keep the custody of the idol only on behalf of the Government as a safeguard against theft etc. and take out the processions of Shri Mahakaleshwar Deity on behalf of the Government and receive only a portion of offerings made by the people for attending the idol. The plaintiffs and their ancestors were working as servants in the temple and executed an agreement on 17th November 1926 whereby they agreed to receive Charotri in lieu of services rendered by them. The plaintiffs had no right to receive offerings by virtue of their office and consequently had no right to property. In regard to the validity of the act of 1953 it was held that none of its provisions was ultra vires. Aggrieved by that decree the plaintiffs have preferred First Appeal No. 6 of 1979 aforesaid, now renumbered as 211 of 1986.