MANADANANDA JHA Vs. TARAKANANDA JHA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts material for the determination of the questions which, require consideration in these Rules may, be briefly stated.

(2.) On the 15 April, 1897, one Umeshananda Dutt Jha along with two other persons instituted a suit under Section 539 of the Code of 1882 with the consent of the then Advocate- General, for the removal of the high priest of the Baidyanath Temple and for the settlement of a scheme for the management of the institution. Sailalajanand Dutt Jha, the high priest at the time, was the original defendant in that litigation. Subsequently his son, Paramprokasbanand Jha and his grandson by a predeceased son, Bhabaprotap Nand were added as defendants. After a protracted trial, the judgment was pronounced on the 4 July 1901 by Mr. Jogesh Chunder Mitter, then District Judge of Burdwan. The substance of the decision was that the high priest was ordered to be removed from his office and a scheme was drawn up for the management of the institution in future. Before the decree could be signed, Mr. Mitter left the District with the result that on the 15 July, 1901, a decree was drawn up pursuant to his judgment and was signed by his successor-in-office Mr. G.K. Deb, on the 5 of August 1901; the decree was amended by Mr. H.D. Carey, the next District Judge, by the insertion of several schedules, on the basis of the judgment. On the same day an appeal was lodged in this Court by the original defendant Sailalajanand Dutt Jha. This purported to be an appeal against the decree assigned by Mr. G.K. Deb. On the 2nd December, 1901, another appeal against the decree was lodged in this Court by Paramprokashananda During the pendency of the Appeals in this Court, on the 21 April, 1902, a copy of the decree as amended by Mr. Carey was attached to the memorandums, and thereafter the appeals proceeded on the assumption that they were directed against the amended decree. On the 16 June, 1905, this Court pronounced judgments in the appeal Silajanand V/s. Umeshanand 2 C.L.J 466. The appeal by Sailalajanand Dutt Jha was dismissed, but the appeal preferred by Paramprokashanand was allowed. The decree of the District Judge was modified at his instance, but in the decretal order which was drawn up in this Court the precise variation was not specified. On the 8th September, 1910, this Court proceeded to insert two clauses in the original decree to he following effect : First, liberty to any person interested to apply to the District Court with reference to the carrying out of the directions of the scheme, and secondly, liberty to any person interested from time to time to apply to the High Court for any modification of the scheme that may appear to be necessary or convenient. It was found necessary to insert these clauses because disputes had broken up between the Committee of Management appointed under the schema and the new high priest Umeshanand Dutt Jha who had taken charge of the institution on the removal of Sailalajanand Dut Jha. The principle on which these clauses were inserted in the decree was explained by this Court in the following passage of its judgment in the case of Umeshanand Dutt Jha V/s. Ravanesioar Prosad Singh (1918) 43 I.C. 773.

(3.) "The authority of the Court to amend the scheme from time to time has not been and cannot possibly be questioned. It was pointed out by Mr. Justice Subrahmanya Ayyar in the case Prayag Das Jivaru V/s. Tirumala Sriranga Charlu Varu (1905) 28 Mad. 319 which was subsequently affirmed by the Judicial Committee in Prayag Das Jivaru V/s. Tirumala Sriranga Gharlu Varu (1907) 30 Mad. 138, there is ample authority for the proposition that a Court which has sanctioned a scheme for the administration of a charitable trust is competent from time to time to vary the scheme as exigencies of the case may require. Reference need only be made to the decisions in Attorney-General V/s. Bovell (1840) 1 Ph. 762, Attorney-General v. Bishop of Worcester (1851) 9 Hare. 762, Mayor of Lyons V/s. Advocate-General-of Bengal (1876) 1 A.C. 110, and Brownies Hospital V/s. Stamford (1889) 60 L.T. 288. The result of the insertion of these clauses was that parties interested in the management of the institution did from time to time apply to this Court for amendment of the scheme as originally settled and one of these instances is to be found in the case of Umeshanand Dutt Jha V/s. Ravaneswar Prosad Singh (1912) 16 C.L.J. 431. A copy of the scheme as varied from time to time is not on the record of this Court, and it is consequently impossible for us to state what the precise position of the scheme is at the present moment. We shall presently give directions so that this difficulty may be avoided in future.